All Title Author
Keywords Abstract

Publish in OALib Journal
ISSN: 2333-9721
APC: Only $99
Paper Submission

ViewsDownloads

Relative Articles

Interaural Level Differences Do Not Suffice for Restoring Spatial Release from Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Listening

Cochlear Implant

Cochlear Implant

Cochlear Implant in Adults

Audiovisual Segregation in Cochlear Implant Users

The Effects of Noise on Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Subjects: Predictions and Analysis Using Acoustic Models

Studying the Language Development in Children with Cochlear Implant

Low Power Architecture For Cochlear Implant

Complications of cochlear implant surgery

Meningitis as cochlear implant complication

More...
PLOS ONE  2014 

Advanced Beamformers for Cochlear Implant Users: Acute Measurement of Speech Perception in Challenging Listening Conditions

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095542

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Objective To investigate the performance of monaural and binaural beamforming technology with an additional noise reduction algorithm, in cochlear implant recipients. Method This experimental study was conducted as a single subject repeated measures design within a large German cochlear implant centre. Twelve experienced users of an Advanced Bionics HiRes90K or CII implant with a Harmony speech processor were enrolled. The cochlear implant processor of each subject was connected to one of two bilaterally placed state-of-the-art hearing aids (Phonak Ambra) providing three alternative directional processing options: an omnidirectional setting, an adaptive monaural beamformer, and a binaural beamformer. A further noise reduction algorithm (ClearVoice) was applied to the signal on the cochlear implant processor itself. The speech signal was presented from 0° and speech shaped noise presented from loudspeakers placed at ±70°, ±135° and 180°. The Oldenburg sentence test was used to determine the signal-to-noise ratio at which subjects scored 50% correct. Results Both the adaptive and binaural beamformer were significantly better than the omnidirectional condition (5.3 dB±1.2 dB and 7.1 dB±1.6 dB (p<0.001) respectively). The best score was achieved with the binaural beamformer in combination with the ClearVoice noise reduction algorithm, with a significant improvement in SRT of 7.9 dB±2.4 dB (p<0.001) over the omnidirectional alone condition. Conclusions The study showed that the binaural beamformer implemented in the Phonak Ambra hearing aid could be used in conjunction with a Harmony speech processor to produce substantial average improvements in SRT of 7.1 dB. The monaural, adaptive beamformer provided an averaged SRT improvement of 5.3 dB.

 References

[1]  Firszt JB, Holden LK, Skinner MW, Tobey EA, Peterson A, et al. (2004) Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems. Ear Hear 25(4): 375–87. doi: 10.1097/01.aud.0000134552.22205.ee
[2]  Litovsky R, Parkinson A, Arcaroli J, Sammeth C (2006) Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a multicenter clinical study. Ear Hear 27(6): 714–31. doi: 10.1097/01.aud.0000246816.50820.42
[3]  Patrick JF, Busby PA, Gibson PJ (2006) The development of the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear implant system. Trends Amplif 10(4): 175–200. doi: 10.1177/1084713806296386
[4]  Spahr A, Dorman M (2004) Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130(5): 624–8. doi: 10.1001/archotol.130.5.624
[5]  James CJ, Blamey PJ, Martin L, Swanson B, Just Y, et al.. (2002) Adaptive dynamic range optimization for cochlear implants: a preliminary study. Ear Hear. 23(1 Suppl):49S–58S.
[6]  Buechner A, Brendel M, Saalfeld H, Litvak L, Frohne-Buechner C, et al. (2010) Results of a pilot study with a signal enhancement algorithm for HiRes120 cochlear implant users. Otol Neurotol 31(9): 1386–90. doi: 10.1097/mao.0b013e3181f1cdc6
[7]  Hersbach AA, Arora K, Mauger SJ, Dawson PW (2012) Combining directional microphone and single-channel noise reduction algorithms: a clinical evaluation in difficult listening conditions with cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 33(4): e13–23. doi: 10.1097/aud.0b013e31824b9e21
[8]  Spriet A, Van Deun L, Eftaxiadis K, Laneau J, Moonen M, et al. (2007) Speech understanding in background noise with the two-microphone adaptive beamformer BEAM in the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear Implant System. Ear Hear 28(1): 62–72. doi: 10.1097/01.aud.0000252470.54246.54
[9]  Wolfe J, Parkinson A, Schafer EC, Gilden J, Rehwinkel K, et al. (2012) Benefit of a commercially available cochlear implant processor with dual-microphone beamforming: a multi-center study. Otol Neurotol 33(4): 553–60. doi: 10.1097/mao.0b013e31825367a5
[10]  Greenberg JE, Zurek PM (1992) Evaluation of an adaptive beamforming method for hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 91(3): 1662–76. doi: 10.1121/1.402446
[11]  Kates JM (1993) Superdirective arrays for hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 94(4): 1930–3. doi: 10.1121/1.407515
[12]  Kompis M, Dillier N (2001) Performance of an adaptive beamforming noise reduction scheme for hearing aid applications. II. Experimental verification of the predictions. J Acoust Soc Am 109(3): 1134–43. doi: 10.1121/1.1338558
[13]  Peterson PM, Wei SM, Rabinowitz WM, Zurek PM (1990) Robustness of an adaptive beamforming method for hearing aids. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 469: 85–90.
[14]  Kates JM, Weiss MR (1996) A comparison of hearing-aid array processing techniques. J Acoust Soc Am 99(5): 3138–48. doi: 10.1121/1.414798
[15]  Ricketts T, Henry P (2002) Evaluation of an adaptive, directional-microphone hearing aid. Int J Audiol 41(2): 100–12. doi: 10.3109/14992020209090400
[16]  Ricketts T, Dhar S (1999) Comparison of performance across three directional hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 10(4): 180–9.
[17]  Ricketts T, Mueller HG (1999) Making sense of directional microphone hearing aids. Am J Audiol 8(2): 117–27. doi: 10.1044/1059-0889(1999/018)
[18]  Bentler RA (2005) Effectiveness of directional microphones and noise reduction schemes in hearing aids: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Acad Audiol 16(7): 473–84. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.16.7.7
[19]  McCreery RW, Venediktov RA, Coleman JJ, Leech HM (2012) An Evidence-Based Systematic Review of Directional Microphones and Digital Noise Reduction Hearing Aids in School-Age Children with Hearing Loss. Am J Audiol 21(2): 295–312. doi: 10.1044/1059-0889(2012/12-0014)
[20]  Mackenzie E, Lutman ME (2005) Speech recognition and comfort using hearing instruments with adaptive directional characteristics in asymmetric listening conditions. Ear Hear 26(6): 669–79. doi: 10.1097/01.aud.0000188185.78217.c5
[21]  Kokkinakis K, Azimi B, Hu Y, Friedland DR (2012) Single and Multiple Microphone Noise Reduction Strategies in Cochlear Implants. Trends Amplif 16(2): 102–16. doi: 10.1177/1084713812456906
[22]  Latzel M (2012) Binaural VoiceStream Technology. Intelligent binaural algorithms to improve speech understanding. Phonak Insight, Phonak AG, Switzerland.
[23]  Hamacher V, Doering WH, Mauer G, Fleischmann H, Hennecke J (1997) Evaluation of noise reduction systems for cochlear implant users in different acoustic environment. Am J Otol. 18(6 Suppl):S46–9.
[24]  van Hoesel RJ, Clark GM (1995) Evaluation of a portable two-microphone adaptive beamforming speech processor with cochlear implant patients. J Acoust Soc Am 97(4): 2498–503. doi: 10.1121/1.411970
[25]  Nyffeler M (2010) StereoZoom, Improvements with directional microphones. Field study news, Phonak AG, Switzerland.
[26]  Elko G, Pong A (1995) Simple adaptive first order differential microphone. Proceedings of IEEE workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics, New Paltz, NY, USA. pp. 169–72.
[27]  Nogueira W, Litvak L, Edler B, Ostermann J, Buechner A (2009) Signal Processing Strategies for Cochlear Implants Using Current Steering, EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing. 10.1155/2009/531213.
[28]  Kollmeier B, Wesselkamp M (1997) Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997 102(4): 2412–21. doi: 10.1121/1.419624
[29]  Wagener KC, Brand T (2005) Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: influence of measurement procedure and masking parameters. Int J Audiol 44(3): 144–56. doi: 10.1080/14992020500057517
[30]  Dawes P, Munro KJ, Kalluri S, Edwards B (2013) Unilateral and bilateral hearing aids, spatial release from masking and auditory acclimatization. J Acoust Soc Am 134(1): 596–606 doi: 10.1121/1.4807783.
[31]  Chung K, Zeng FG, Acker KN (2006) Effects of directional microphone and adaptive multichannel noise reduction algorithm on cochlear implant performance. J Acoust Soc Am 120: 2216–27. doi: 10.1121/1.2258500
[32]  Wouters J, Van den Berghe J (2001) Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implantees with a two microphone monaural adaptive noise reduction system. Ear Hear 22: 420–30. doi: 10.1097/00003446-200110000-00006
[33]  Brockmeyer AM, Potts LG (2011) Evaluation of different signal processing options in unilateral and bilateral cochlear freedom implant recipients using R-Space background noise. J Am Acad Audiol 22(2): 65–80. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.22.2.2
[34]  Gifford RH, Revit LJ (2010) 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 21(7): 441–51. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.21.7.3
[35]  Ricketts T (2000) Directivity quantification in hearing aids: fitting and measurement effects. Ear Hear 21(1): 45–58. doi: 10.1097/00003446-200002000-00008
[36]  Hamacher V, Chalupper J, Eggers J, Fischer E, Kornagel U, et al.. (2005) Signal Processing in High-End Hearing Aids: State of the Art, Challenges, and Future Trends, EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing. (18: ), 2915–2929.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus