Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(03): 197-205
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16126
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Speech Understanding and Sound Source Localization by Cochlear Implant Listeners Using a Pinna-Effect Imitating Microphone and an Adaptive Beamformer

Michael F. Dorman
*   Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
,
Sarah Natale
*   Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
,
Louise Loiselle
*   Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 May 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Sentence understanding scores for patients with cochlear implants (CIs) when tested in quiet are relatively high. However, sentence understanding scores for patients with CIs plummet with the addition of noise.

Purpose:

To assess, for patients with CIs (MED-EL), (1) the value to speech understanding of two new, noise-reducing microphone settings and (2) the effect of the microphone settings on sound source localization.

Research Design:

Single-subject, repeated measures design. For tests of speech understanding, repeated measures on (1) number of CIs (one, two), (2) microphone type (omni, natural, adaptive beamformer), and (3) type of noise (restaurant, cocktail party). For sound source localization, repeated measures on type of signal (low-pass [LP], high-pass [HP], broadband noise).

Study Sample:

Ten listeners, ranging in age from 48 to 83 yr (mean = 57 yr), participated in this prospective study.

Intervention:

Speech understanding was assessed in two noise environments using monaural and bilateral CIs fit with three microphone types. Sound source localization was assessed using three microphone types.

Data Collection and Analysis:

In Experiment 1, sentence understanding scores (in terms of percent words correct) were obtained in quiet and in noise. For each patient, noise was first added to the signal to drive performance off of the ceiling in the bilateral CI-omni microphone condition. The other conditions were then administered at that signal-to-noise ratio in quasi-random order. In Experiment 2, sound source localization accuracy was assessed for three signal types using a 13-loudspeaker array over a 180° arc. The dependent measure was root-mean-score error.

Results:

Both the natural and adaptive microphone settings significantly improved speech understanding in the two noise environments. The magnitude of the improvement varied between 16 and 19 percentage points for tests conducted in the restaurant environment and between 19 and 36 percentage points for tests conducted in the cocktail party environment. In the restaurant and cocktail party environments, both the natural and adaptive settings, when implemented on a single CI, allowed scores that were as good as, or better, than scores in the bilateral omni test condition. Sound source localization accuracy was unaltered by either the natural or adaptive settings for LP, HP, or wideband noise stimuli.

Conclusion:

The data support the use of the natural microphone setting as a default setting. The natural setting (1) provides better speech understanding in noise than the omni setting, (2) does not impair sound source localization, and (3) retains low-frequency sensitivity to signals from the rear. Moreover, bilateral CIs equipped with adaptive beamforming technology can engender speech understanding scores in noise that fall only a little short of scores for a single CI in quiet.

Key Words

beamforming - cochlear implants - R-Space™ - speech perception in noise

This work was supported by grants from the NIDCD (R01 DC DC008329) and from the MED-EL Corporation to M.F.D.


 

  • REFERENCES

  • Bichey BG, Miyamoto RT. 2008; Outcomes in bilateral cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 138 (05) 655-661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Buechner A, Dyballa K-H, Hehrmann P, Fredelake S, Lenarz T. 2014; Advanced beamformers for cochlear implant users: acute measurement of speech perception in challenging listening conditions. PLoS One 9 (04) e95542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Buss E, Pillsbury HC, Buchman CA. 2008; Multicenter U.S. bilateral MED-EL cochlear implantation study: speech perception over the first year of use. Ear Hear 29 (01) 20-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Dorman MF, Gifford RH. 2017; Speech understanding in complex listening environments by listeners fit with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res 60 (10) 3019-3026
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Dorman MF, Liss J, Wang S, Berisha V, Ludwig C, Natale SC. 2016; Experiments on auditory-visual perception of sentences by unilateral, bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant patients. J Speech Lang Hear Res 59 (06) 1505-1519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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 (07) 441-451, quiz 487–488
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gifford RH, Shallop JK, Peterson AM. 2008; Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol Neurootol 13 (03) 193-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Grantham DW, Ashmead DH, Ricketts TA, Labadie RF, Haynes DS. 2007; Horizontal-plane localization of noise and speech signals by postlingually deafened adults fitted with bilateral cochlear implants. Ear Hear 28 (04) 524-541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Griffiths LJ, Jim WC. 1982; An alternative approach to linearly constrained adaptive beamforming. IEEE Trans Antenn Propag 30: 27-34
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hehrmann P, Fredelake S, Hamacher V, Dyballa K-H, Buchner A. 2012 Improved speech intelligibility with cochlear implants using state of the art noise reduction algorithms. ITG Report 236, 10th ITG Conference on Speech Communication, Braunschweig, Germany, September 26–28
    Google Scholar
  • Kokkinakis K, Azimi B, Hu Y, Friedland DR. 2012; Single and multiple microphone noise reduction strategies in cochlear implants. Trends Amplif 16 (02) 102-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kuk F, Korhonen P, Lau C, Keenan D, Norgaard M. 2013; Evaluation of a pinna compensation algorithm for sound localization and speech perception in noise. Am J Audiol 22 (01) 84-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Litovsky R, Parkinson A, Arcaroli J, Sammeth C. 2006; Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a multicenter clinical study. Ear Hear 27 (06) 714-731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mosnier I, Sterkers O, Bebear JP, Godey B, Robier A, Deguine O, Fraysse B, Bordure P, Mondain M, Bouccara D, Bozorg-Grayeli A, Borel S, Ambert-Dahan E, Ferrary E. 2009; Speech performance and sound localization in a complex noisy environment in bilaterally implanted adult patients. Audiol Neurootol 14 (02) 106-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rakerd B, Hartmann WM. 1986; Localization of sound in rooms, III: onset and duration effects. J Acoust Soc Am 80 (06) 1695-1706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Revit LJ, Killion MC, Compton-Conley CL. 2007; Developing and testing a laboratory sound system that yields accurate real-world results. Hear Rev 14 (11) 54-62
    Google Scholar
  • Ricketts TA, Grantham DW, Ashmead DH, Haynes DS, Labadie RF. 2006; Speech recognition for unilateral and bilateral cochlear implant modes in the presence of uncorrelated noise sources. Ear Hear 27 (06) 763-773
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM, Cook SJ, Loiselle LM, DeJong MD, Hedley-Williams A, Sunderhaus LS, Hayes CA, Gifford RH. 2014; Development and validation of the pediatric AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 35 (04) 418-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM, Van Wie S, Gifford RH, Loizou PC, Loiselle LM, Oakes T, Cook S. 2012; Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 33 (01) 112-117
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Loiselle LH. 2007; Performance of patients using different cochlear implant systems: effects of input dynamic range. Ear Hear 28 (02) 260-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Spriet A, Van Deun L, Eftaxiadis K, Laneau J, Moonen M, van Dijk B, van Wieringen A, Wouters J. 2007; Speech understanding in background noise with the two-microphone adaptive beamformer BEAM in the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear Implant System. Ear Hear 28 (01) 62-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • van Hoesel RJ. 2015; Audio-visual speech intelligibility benefits with bilateral cochlear implants when talker location varies. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 16 (02) 309-315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wilson R, Dorman M, Gifford R, McAlpine D. 2016. Cochlear implant design considerations. In: Young N, Kirk KI. Cochlear Implants in Children: Learning and the Brain. Springer; New York, NY: 3-23
    Google Scholar
  • Wimmer W, Weder S, Caversaccio M, Kompis M. 2016; Speech intelligibility in noise with a pinna effect imitating cochlear implant processor. Otol Neurotol 37 (01) 19-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wolfe J, Parkinson A, Schafer EC, Gilden J, Rehwinkel K, Mansanares J, Coughlan E, Wright J, Torres J, Gannaway S. 2012; Benefit of a commercially available cochlear implant processor with dual-microphone beamforming: a multi-center study. Otol Neurotol 33 (04) 553-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar