scholarly journals Increasing the Effectiveness of Hearing Aid Directional Microphones

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (03) ◽  
pp. 224-236
Author(s):  
Charlotte T. Jespersen ◽  
Brent C. Kirkwood ◽  
Jennifer Groth
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Laboratory Studies ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Listening Strategies ◽  
Binaural Listening

AbstractDirectionality is the only hearing aid technology — in addition to amplification — proven to help hearing aid users hear better in noise. Hearing aid directionality has been documented to improve speech intelligibility in multiple laboratory studies. In contrast, real-world studies have shown a disconnect between the potential of the technology and what hearing aid users experience in their daily life. This article describes the real-world studies that inspired ReSound to take a different approach to applying directional microphone technology. This approach is based on the idea that hearing aid directionality can leverage natural binaural hearing and inherent listening strategies. The directional strategy includes three listening modes that will be explained. These are the Spatial Cue Preservation mode, the Binaural Listening mode, and the Speech Intelligibility mode. The strategy and the advantages it provides in terms of sound quality, spatial hearing, and improved signal-to-noise ratio with maintained awareness of surroundings are explained.

Effect of Signal-to-Noise Ratio on Directional Microphone Benefit and Preference

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (09) ◽  
pp. 662-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Walden ◽  
Rauna K. Surr ◽  
Kenneth W. Grant ◽  
W. Van Summers ◽  
Mary T. Cord ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Directional Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Directional Hearing Aids

This study examined speech intelligibility and preferences for omnidirectional and directional microphone hearing aid processing across a range of signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). A primary motivation for the study was to determine whether SNR might be used to represent distance between talker and listener in automatic directionality algorithms based on scene analysis. Participants were current hearing aid users who either had experience with omnidirectional microphone hearing aids only or with manually switchable omnidirectional/directional hearing aids. Using IEEE/Harvard sentences from a front loudspeaker and speech-shaped noise from three loudspeakers located behind and to the sides of the listener, the directional advantage (DA) was obtained at 11 SNRs ranging from -15 dB to +15 dB in 3 dB steps. Preferences for the two microphone modes at each of the 11 SNRs were also obtained using concatenated IEEE sentences presented in the speech-shaped noise. Results revealed that a DA was observed across a broad range of SNRs, although directional processing provided the greatest benefit within a narrower range of SNRs. Mean data suggested that microphone preferences were determined largely by the DA, such that the greater the benefit to speech intelligibility provided by the directional microphones, the more likely the listeners were to prefer that processing mode. However, inspection of the individual data revealed that highly predictive relationships did not exist for most individual participants. Few preferences for omnidirectional processing were observed. Overall, the results did not support the use of SNR to estimate the effects of distance between talker and listener in automatic directionality algorithms.

Signal-to-Noise Ratio Advantage of Binaural Hearing Aids and Directional Microphones under Different Levels of Reverberation

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Hawkins ◽  
William S. Yacullo
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Binaural Hearing Aids ◽  
Omnidirectional Microphones ◽  
Different Levels

The signal-to-noise ratio necessary for a constant performance level was determined for normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects under three levels of reverberation (0.3, 0.6, and 1.2 s) with monaural and binaural hearing aids having directional and omnidirectional microphones. Results indicated (a) a significant binaural advantage (2–3 dB) which was independent of microphone type and reverberation time, (b) a significant directional microphone advantage (3–4 dB) which was independent of hearing aid arrangement (monaural or binaural) but dependent on level of reverberation, (c) a significant reverberation effect which was larger than either the binaural or directional microphone effect, and (d) additive binaural and directional microphone advantages. The results suggest that the signal-to-noise ratio is optimized when binaural hearing aids with directional microphones are used in rooms with short reverberation times.

Review of Recent Research on the Selection of Frequency-Gain Characteristics for Hearing Aids

1980 ◽  
Vol 89 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 79-83
Author(s):  
Richard Lippmann
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Linear Amplification ◽  
Percentage Points ◽  
Gain Characteristic ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Fitting Hearing Aids ◽  
Selection Of

Following the Harvard master hearing aid study in 1947 there was little research on linear amplification. Recently, however, there have been a number of studies designed to determine the relationship between the frequency-gain characteristic of a hearing aid and speech intelligibility for persons with sensorineural hearing loss. These studies have demonstrated that a frequency-gain characteristic that rises at a rate of 6 dB/octave, as suggested by the Harvard study, is not optimal. They have also demonstrated that high-frequency emphasis of 10–40 dB above 500–1000 Hz is beneficial. Most importantly, they have demonstrated that hearing aids as they are presently being fit do not provide maximum speech intelligibility. Percent word correct scores obtained with the best frequency-gain characteristics tested in various studies have been found to be 9 to 19 percentage points higher than scores obtained with commercial aids owned by subjects. This increase in scores is equivalent to an increase in signal-to-noise ratio of 10 to 20 dB. This is a significant increase which could allow impaired listeners to communicate in many situations where they presently cannot. These results demonstrate the need for further research on linear amplification aimed at developing practical suggestions for fitting hearing aids.

The Effects of Changes in Head Angle on Auditory and Visual Input for Omnidirectional and Directional Microphone Hearing Aids

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Henry ◽  
Todd Ricketts
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Visual Cues ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Increase Signal Intensity ◽  
Visual Mode

Improving the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for individuals with hearing loss who are listening to speech in noise provides an obvious benefit. Although binaural hearing provides the greatest advantage over monaural hearing in noise, some individuals with symmetrical hearing loss choose to wear only one hearing aid. The present study tested the hypothesis that individuals with symmetrical hearing loss fit with one hearing aid would demonstrate improved speech recognition in background noise with increases in head turn. Fourteen individuals were fit monaurally with a Starkey Gemini in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aid with directional and omnidirectional microphone modes. Speech recognition performance in noise was tested using the audiovisual version of the Connected Speech Test (CST v.3). The test was administered in auditory-only conditions as well as with the addition of visual cues for each of three head angles: 0°, 20°, and 40°. Results indicated improvement in speech recognition performance with changes in head angle for the auditory-only presentation mode at the 20° and 40° head angles when compared to 0°. Improvement in speech recognition performance for the auditory + visual mode was noted for the 20° head angle when compared to 0°. Additionally, a decrement in speech recognition performance for the auditory + visual mode was noted for the 40° head angle when compared to 0°. These results support a speech recognition advantage for listeners fit with one ITE hearing aid listening in a close listener-to-speaker distance when they turn their head slightly in order to increase signal intensity.

scholarly journals Sentence Recognition in Noise and Perceived Benefit of Noise Reduction on the Receiver and Transmitter Sides of a BICROS Hearing Aid

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (10) ◽  
pp. 980-991 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristi Oeding ◽  
Michael Valente
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
The Impact

Background: In the past, bilateral contralateral routing of signals (BICROS) amplification incorporated omnidirectional microphones on the transmitter and receiver sides and some models utilized noise reduction (NR) on the receiver side. Little research has examined the performance of BICROS amplification in background noise. However, previous studies examining contralateral routing of signals (CROS) amplification have reported that the presence of background noise on the transmitter side negatively affected speech recognition. Recently, NR was introduced as a feature on the receiver and transmitter sides of BICROS amplification, which has the potential to decrease the impact of noise on the wanted speech signal by decreasing unwanted noise directed to the transmitter side. Purpose: The primary goal of this study was to examine differences in the reception threshold for sentences (RTS in dB) using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) in a diffuse listening environment between unaided and three aided BICROS conditions (no NR, mild NR, and maximum NR) in the Tandem 16 BICROS. A secondary goal was to examine real-world subjective impressions of the Tandem 16 BICROS compared to unaided. Research Design: A randomized block repeated measures single blind design was used to assess differences between no NR, mild NR, and maximum NR listening conditions. Study Sample: Twenty-one adult participants with asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss (ASNHL) and experience with BICROS amplification were recruited from Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants were fit with the National Acoustic Laboratories’ Nonlinear version 1 prescriptive target (NAL-NL1) with the Tandem 16 BICROS at the initial visit and then verified using real-ear insertion gain (REIG) measures. Participants acclimatized to the Tandem 16 BICROS for 4 wk before returning for final testing. Participants were tested utilizing HINT sentences examining differences in RTS between unaided and three aided listening conditions. Subjective benefit was determined via the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire between the Tandem 16 BICROS and unaided. A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to analyze the results of the HINT and APHAB. Results: Results revealed no significant differences in the RTS between unaided, no NR, mild NR, and maximum NR. Subjective impressions using the APHAB revealed statistically and clinically significant benefit with the Tandem 16 BICROS compared to unaided for the Ease of Communication (EC), Background Noise (BN), and Reverberation (RV) subscales. Conclusions: The RTS was not significantly different between unaided, no NR, mild NR, and maximum NR. None of the three aided listening conditions were significantly different from unaided performance as has been reported for previous studies examining CROS hearing aids. Further, based on comments from participants and previous research studies with conventional hearing aids, manufacturers of BICROS amplification should consider incorporating directional microphones and independent volume controls on the receiver and transmitter sides to potentially provide further improvement in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for patients with ASNHL.

Are Two Ears Not Better Than One?

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (03) ◽  
pp. 171-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A. McArdle ◽  
Mead Killion ◽  
Monica A. Mennite ◽  
Theresa H. Chisolm
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Analysis Experiment ◽  
Insert Earphones ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: The decision to fit one or two hearing aids in individuals with binaural hearing loss has been debated for years. Although some 78% of U.S. hearing aid fittings are binaural (Kochkin , 2010), Walden and Walden (2005) presented data showing that 82% (23 of 28 patients) of their sample obtained significantly better speech recognition in noise scores when wearing one hearing aid as opposed to two. Purpose: To conduct two new experiments to fuel the monaural/binaural debate. The first experiment was a replication of Walden and Walden (2005), whereas the second experiment examined the use of binaural cues to improve speech recognition in noise. Research Design: A repeated measures experimental design. Study Sample: Twenty veterans (aged 59–85 yr), with mild to moderately severe binaurally symmetrical hearing loss who wore binaural hearing aids were recruited from the Audiology Department at the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System. Data Collection and Analysis: Experiment 1 followed the procedures of the Walden and Walden study, where signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss was measured using the Quick Speech-in-Noise (QuickSIN) test on participants who were aided with their current hearing aids. Signal and noise were presented in the sound booth at 0° azimuth under five test conditions: (1) right ear aided, (2) left ear aided, (3) both ears aided, (4) right ear aided, left ear plugged, and (5) unaided. The opposite ear in (1) and (2) was left open. In Experiment 2, binaural Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) manikin recordings made in Lou Malnati's pizza restaurant during a busy period provided a typical real-world noise, while prerecorded target sentences were presented through a small loudspeaker located in front of the KEMAR manikin. Subjects listened to the resulting binaural recordings through insert earphones under the following four conditions: (1) binaural, (2) diotic, (3) monaural left, and (4) monaural right. Results: Results of repeated measures ANOVAs demonstrated that the best speech recognition in noise performance was obtained by most participants with both ears aided in Experiment 1 and in the binaural condition in Experiment 2. Conclusions: In both experiments, only 20% of our subjects did better in noise with a single ear, roughly similar to the earlier Jerger et al (1993) finding that 8–10% of elderly hearing aid users preferred one hearing aid.

A Test to Measure Subjective and Objective Speech Intelligibility

2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (01) ◽  
pp. 038-049 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle H. Saunders ◽  
Kathleen M. Cienkowski
Keyword(s):  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Clinical Tool ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Speech Reception ◽  
Measurement Signal ◽  
Perceptual Performance ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Performance Discrepancy

Measurement of hearing aid outcome is particularly difficult because there are numerous dimensions to consider (e.g., performance, satisfaction, benefit). Often there are discrepancies between scores in these dimensions. It is difficult to reconcile these discrepancies because the materials and formats used to measure each dimension are so very different. We report data obtained with an outcome measure that examines both objective and subjective dimensions with the same test format and materials and gives results in the same unit of measurement (signal-to-noise ratio). Two variables are measured: a “performance” speech reception threshold and a “perceptual” speech reception threshold. The signal-to-noise ratio difference between these is computed to determine the perceptual-performance discrepancy (PPDIS). The results showed that, on average, 48 percent of the variance in subjective ratings of a hearing aid could be explained by a combination of the performance speech reception threshold and the PPDIS. These findings suggest that the measure is potentially a valuable clinical tool.

The Effects of Varying Directional Bandwidth in Hearing Aid Users' Preference and Speech-in-Noise Performance

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-103
Author(s):  
Adriana Goyette ◽  
Jeff Crukley ◽  
Jason Galster
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Internal Noise ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Noise Performance ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing In Noise

Purpose Directional microphone systems are typically used to improve hearing aid users' understanding of speech in noise. However, directional microphones also increase internal hearing aid noise. The purpose of this study was to investigate how varying directional microphone bandwidth affected listening preference and speech-in-noise performance. Method Ten participants with normal hearing and 10 participants with hearing impairment compared internal noise levels between hearing aid memories with 4 different microphone modes: omnidirectional, full directional, high-frequency directionality with directional processing above 900 Hz, and high-frequency directionality with directional processing above 2000 Hz. Speech-in-noise performance was measured with each memory for the participants with hearing impairment. Results Participants with normal hearing preferred memories with less directional bandwidth. Participants with hearing impairment also tended to prefer the memories with less directional bandwidth. However, the majority of participants with hearing impairment did not indicate a preference between omnidirectional and directional above 2000 Hz memories. Average hearing-in-noise performance improved with increasing directional bandwidth. Conclusions Most participants preferred memories with less directional bandwidth in quiet. Participants with hearing impairment indicated no difference in preference between directional above 2000 Hz and the omnidirectional memories. Speech recognition in noise performance improved with increasing directional bandwidth.

scholarly journals Consistency of Hearing Aid Setting Preference in Simulated Real-World Environments: Implications for Trainable Hearing Aids

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 233121652093339
Author(s):  
Els Walravens ◽  
Gitte Keidser ◽  
Louise Hickson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Real World ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Traffic Noise ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Acoustic Environment ◽  
Change Environment ◽  
Noise Ratio

Trainable hearing aids let users fine-tune their hearing aid settings in their own listening environment: Based on consistent user-adjustments and information about the acoustic environment, the trainable aids will change environment-specific settings to the user’s preference. A requirement for effective fine-tuning is consistency of preference for similar settings in similar environments. The aim of this study was to evaluate consistency of preference for settings differing in intensity, gain-frequency slope, and directionality when listening in simulated real-world environments and to determine if participants with more consistent preferences could be identified based on profile measures. A total of 52 adults (63–88 years) with hearing varying from normal to a moderate sensorineural hearing loss selected their preferred setting from pairs differing in intensity (3 or 6 dB), gain-frequency slope (±1.3 or ± 2.7 dB/octave), or directionality (omnidirectional vs. cardioid) in four simulated real-world environments: traffic noise, a monologue in traffic noise at 5 dB signal-to-noise ratio, and a dialogue in café noise at 5 and at 0 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Forced-choice comparisons were made 10 times for each combination of pairs of settings and environment. Participants also completed nine psychoacoustic, cognitive, and personality measures. Consistency of preference, defined by a setting preferred at least 9 out of 10 times, varied across participants. More participants obtained consistent preferences for larger differences between settings and less difficult environments. The profile measures did not predict consistency of preference. Trainable aid users could benefit from counselling to ensure realistic expectations for particular adjustments and listening situations.

Performance of Directional Microphones for Hearing Aids: Real-World versus Simulation

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (06) ◽  
pp. 440-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia L. Compton-Conley ◽  
Arlene C. Neuman ◽  
Mead C. Killion ◽  
Harry Levitt
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Real World ◽  
Noise Source ◽  
Live Performance ◽  
Space Condition ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Simulation Techniques ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
The Absolute

The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of clinical and laboratory measures of directional microphone benefit. Three methods of simulating a noisy restaurant listening situation ([1] a multimicrophone/multiloudspeaker simulation, the R-SPACE™, [2] a single noise source behind the listener, and [3] a single noise source above the listener) were evaluated and compared to the "live" condition. Performance with three directional microphone systems differing in polar pattern (omnidirectional, supercardioid, and hypercardioid array) and directivity indices (0.34, 4.20, and 7.71) was assessed using a modified version of the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT). The evaluation revealed that the three microphones could be ordered with regard to the benefit obtained using any of the simulation techniques. However, the absolute performance obtained with each microphone type differed among simulations. Only the R-SPACE simulation yielded accurate estimates of the absolute performance of all three microphones in the live condition. Performance in the R-SPACE condition was not significantly different from performance in the "live restaurant" condition. Neither of the single noise source simulations provided accurate predictions of real-world (live) performance for all three microphones.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document