Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(01): 039-044
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1718893
Research Article

The Benefit of Remote and On-Ear Directional Microphone Technology Persists in the Presence of Visual Information

Michael F. Dorman
1   Department of Speech and Hearing Science, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
,
Sarah Cook Natale
1   Department of Speech and Hearing Science, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
,
Smita Agrawal
2   Advanced Bionics, Valencia, California
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Both the Roger remote microphone and on-ear, adaptive beamforming technologies (e.g., Phonak UltraZoom) have been shown to improve speech understanding in noise for cochlear implant (CI) listeners when tested in audio-only (A-only) test environments.

Purpose Our aim was to determine if adult and pediatric CI recipients benefited from these technologies in a more common environment—one in which both audio and visual cues were available and when overall performance was high.

Study Sample Ten adult CI listeners (Experiment 1) and seven pediatric CI listeners (Experiment 2) were tested.

Design Adults were tested in quiet and in two levels of noise (level 1 and level 2) in A-only and audio-visual (AV) environments. There were four device conditions: (1) an ear canal-level, omnidirectional microphone (T-mic) in quiet, (2) the T-mic in noise, (3) an adaptive directional mic (UltraZoom) in noise, and (4) a wireless, remote mic (Roger Pen) in noise. Pediatric listeners were tested in quiet and in level 1 noise in A-only and AV environments. The test conditions were: (1) a behind-the-ear level omnidirectional mic (processor mic) in quiet, (2) the processor mic in noise, (3) the T-mic in noise, and (4) the Roger Pen in noise.

Data Collection and Analyses In each test condition, sentence understanding was assessed (percent correct) and ease of listening ratings were obtained. The sentence understanding data were entered into repeated-measures analyses of variance.

Results For both adult and pediatric listeners in the AV test conditions in level 1 noise, performance with the Roger Pen was significantly higher than with the T-mic. For both populations, performance in level 1 noise with the Roger Pen approached the level of baseline performance in quiet. Ease of listening in noise was rated higher in the Roger Pen conditions than in the T-mic or processor mic conditions in both A-only and AV test conditions.

Conclusion The Roger remote mic and on-ear directional mic technologies benefit both speech understanding and ease of listening in a realistic laboratory test environment and are likely do the same in real-world listening environments.

Keywords

cochlear implant - auditory prosthesis - microphone technology


Publication History

Received: 27 March 2020

Accepted: 19 July 2020

Article published online:
09 December 2020

© 2020. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Dorman MF, Gifford RH. Speech understanding in complex listening environments by listeners fit with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2017; 60 (10) 3019-3026
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 De Ceulaer G, Bestel J, Mülder HE, Goldbeck F, de Varebeke SP, Govaerts PJ. Speech understanding in noise with the Roger Pen, Naida CI Q70 processor, and integrated Roger 17 receiver in a multi-talker network. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 273 (05) 1107-1114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wesarg T, Arndt S, Wiebe K. et al. Speech recognition in noise in single-sided deaf cochlear implant recipients using digital remote wireless microphone technology. J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30 (07) 607-618
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wolfe J, Morais M, Schafer E. et al. Evaluation of speech recognition of cochlear implant recipients using a personal digital adaptive radio frequency system. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (08) 714-724
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Wolfe J, Morais M, Schafer E, Agrawal S, Koch D. Evaluation of speech recognition of cochlear implant recipients using adaptive, digital remote microphone technology and a speech enhancement sound processing algorithm. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (05) 502-508
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Zanin J, Rance G. Functional hearing in the classroom: assistive listening devices for students with hearing impairment in a mainstream school setting. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (12) 723-729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Geißler G, Arweiler I, Hehrmann P, Lenarz T, Hamacher V, Büchner A. Speech reception threshold benefits in cochlear implant users with an adaptive beamformer in real life situations. Cochlear Implants Int 2015; 16 (02) 69-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dorman MF, Natale S, Spahr A, Castioni E. Speech understanding in noise by cochlear implant patients using a monaural adaptive beamformer. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2017; 60 (08) 2360-2363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mauger SJ, Warren CD, Knight MR, Goorevich M, Nel E. Clinical evaluation of the Nucleus 6 cochlear implant system: performance improvements with SmartSound iQ. Int J Audiol 2014; 53 (08) 564-576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mosnier I, Mathias N, Flament J. et al. Benefit of the UltraZoom beamforming technology in noise in cochlear implant users. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 274 (09) 3335-3342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Buechner A, Dyballa KH, Hehrmann P, Fredelake S, Lenarz T. Advanced beamformers for cochlear implant users: acute measurement of speech perception in challenging listening conditions. PLoS One 2014; 9 (04) e95542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dorman MF, Cook Natale S, Agrawal S. The value of unilateral CIs, CI–CROS and bilateral CIs, with and without beamformer microphones, for speech understanding in a simulation of a restaurant environment. Audiol Neurotol 2018; 23 (05) 270-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ernst A, Anton K, Brendel M, Battmer RD. Benefit of directional microphones for unilateral, bilateral and bimodal cochlear implant users. Cochlear Implants Int 2019; 20 (03) 147-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mauger SJ, Jones M, Nel E, Del Dot J. Clinical outcomes with the Kanso™ off-the-ear cochlear implant sound processor. Int J Audiol 2017; 56 (04) 267-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Johnstone PM, Mills KET, Humphrey E. et al. Using microphone technology to improve speech perception in noise in children with cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (09) 814-825
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dorman MF, Liss J, Wang S, Berisha V, Ludwig C, Natale SC. Experiments on auditory-visual perception of sentences by unilateral, bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant patients. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2016; 59 (06) 1505-1519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wu Y-H, Stangl E, Chipara O, Hasan SS, Welhaven A, Oleson J. Characteristics of real-world signal-to-noise ratios and speech listening situations of older adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (02) 293-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Altieri NA, Pisoni DB, Townsend JT. Some normative data on lip-reading skills (L). J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 130 (01) 1-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Rosenblum LD. Speech perception as a multimodal phenomenon. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2008; 17 (06) 405-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Summerfield Q. Some preliminaries to a comprehensive account of audio-visual speech perception. In: Dodd B, Campbell R. eds. Hearing by Eye: The Psychology of Lip-Reading. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1987: 53-83
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Sumby WH, Pollack I. Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1954; 26 (02) 212-215
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Desai S, Stickney G, Zeng F-G. Auditory-visual speech perception in normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 123 (01) 428-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Gray RF, Quinn SJ, Court I, Vanat Z, Baguley DM. Patient performance over eighteen months with the Ineraid intracochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 166 (166) 275-277
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kaiser AR, Kirk KI, Lachs L, Pisoni DB. Talker and lexical effects on audiovisual word recognition by adults with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2003; 46 (02) 390-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wu Y-H, Bentler RA. Impact of visual cues on directional benefit and preference: part I--laboratory tests. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (01) 22-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kolberg ER, Sheffield SW, Davis TJ, Sunderhaus LW, Gifford RH. Cochlear implant microphone location affects speech recognition in diffuse noise. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (01) 51-58 , quiz 109–110
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Gifford RH, Revit LJ. Speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in a realistic background noise: effectiveness of preprocessing strategies and external options for improving speech recognition in noise. J Am Acad Audiol 2010; 21 (07) 441-451 , quiz 487–488
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Compton-Conley CL, Neuman AC, Killion MC, Levitt H. Performance of directional microphones for hearing aids: real-world versus simulation. J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15 (06) 440-455
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 MacLeod A, Summerfield Q. Quantifying the contribution of vision to speech perception in noise. Br J Audiol 1987; 21 (02) 131-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 MacLeod A, Summerfield Q. A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise: rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. Br J Audiol 1990; 24 (01) 29-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Smeds K, Wolters F, Rung M. Estimation of signal-to-noise ratios in realistic sound scenarios. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (02) 183-196
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM. et al. Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (01) 112-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar