Application of Digital Remote Wireless Microphone Technology in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant RecipientsFunding The authors of this manuscript did not receive any monetary compensation for this study. Phonak GmbH (Fellbach-Oeffingen, Germany) provided a Roger™ system loaner to CI-Centrum Rhein-Mosel-Lahn for this study. This study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki (Washington, World Medical Association, 2013) and was approved by the ethics committee of the Landesarztekammer Rheinland-Pfalz.
15 April 2020 (online)
Background Previous research showed benefits of remote wireless technology in bilaterally moderate- to-severe hearing-impaired participants provided with hearing aid(s), cochlear implant(s) (CIs), or bimodal devices as well as in single-sided deaf (SSD) cochlear implant recipients (with CI from Cochlear™) and normal-hearing (NH) participants.
Purpose To evaluate the effect of the digital remote wireless microphone system, Roger™, on speech recognition at different levels of multisource noise in SSD CI recipients using MED-EL CI sound processor OPUS 2. Outcomes were assessed as a function of the listening condition (NH only, NH + CI, NH + CIRog, NHRog + CI, and NHRog + CIRog), Roger™ receiver type (Roger™ Focus for NH; Roger™ Xand Roger™ MyLink for CI) and accessory mixing ratio.
Study Sample Eleven adult, SSD participants aided with CI from MED-EL.
Data Collection and Analysis Speech recognition in noise was assessed in two no-Roger™ conditions, one Roger™ X condition, and two Roger™ MyLink conditions. For the Roger™ X and no-Roger™ conditions, speech recognition was tested at 60.3 dB(A) with the Oldenburg Sentence Test in classroom noise at levels of 55, 65, and 75 dB(A). For the two Roger™ MyLink conditions, speech recognition at 60.3 dB(A) was measured at a noise level of 75 dB(A). Roger™ X was assessed with an accessory mixing ratio of 1:1 (summation of unattenuated microphone and audio accessory input). For Roger™ MyLink, two accessory mixing ratios were investigated, MT (1:1, summation of unattenuated microphone and telecoil input) and T with maximum attenuation of microphone input.
Results Speech recognition at higher noise levels (65 and 75 dB(A)) improved significantly with Roger™ in both unilateral use conditions (NH + CIRog and NHRog + CI) as well as bilateral use condition (NHRog + CIRog). Both the bilateral application of Roger™ and the unilateral Roger™ application on the NH ear outperformed the Roger™ application on CI alone. There was no statistically significant effect of type of CI Roger™ receiver (Roger™ X or Roger™ MyLink) and the accessory mixing ratio (MT or T) on speech recognition.
Conclusions Speech recognition for distant speakers in multisource noise improved significantly with the application of Roger™ in SSD CI recipients. Both the unilateral Roger™ application on the NH ear or the CI as well as the bilateral Roger™ application can be recommended.
- 1 American Academy of Audiology. Clinical Practice Guidelines Remote Microphone Hearing Assistance Technologies for Children and Youth from Birth to 21 Years (Includes Supplement A). 2011 https://audiology-web.s3.amazonaws.com/migrated/HAT_Guidelines_Supplement_A.pdf_53996ef7758497.54419000.pdf . Accessed April 6, 2019
- 2 Arndt S, Aschendorff A, Laszig R, Beck R, Schild C, Kroeger S, Ihorst G, Wesarg T. Comparison of pseudobinaural hearing to real binaural hearing rehabilitation after cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus. Otol Neurotol 2011; 32 (01) 39-47
- 3 Arndt S, Laszig R, Aschendorff A, Hassepaß F, Wesarg T. Cochlear implant treatment of patients with single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss. HNO 2017; 65 (07) 586-598
- 4 Buechner A, Brendel M, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Wenzel G, Frohne-Buechner C, Jaeger B, Lenarz T. Cochlear implantation in unilateral deaf subjects associated with ipsilateral tinnitus. Otol Neurotol 2010; 31 (09) 1381-1385
- 5 De Ceulaer G, Bestel J, Mulder 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
- 6 De Ceulaer G, Pascoal D, Vanpoucke F, Govaerts P. The use of cochlear's SCAN and wireless microphones to improve speech understanding in noise with the Nucleus 6® CP900 processor. Int JAudiol 2017; 56 (11) 837-843
- 7 Firszt JB, Holden LK, Reeder RM, Waltzman SB, Arndt S. Auditory abilities after cochlear implantation in adults with unilateral deafness: a pilot study. Otol Neurotol 2012; 33 (08) 1339-1346
- 8 Friedmann DR, Ahmed OH, McMenomey SO, Shapiro WH, Waltzman SB, Roland Jr JT. Single-sided deafness cochlear implantation: candidacy, evaluation, and outcomes in children and adults. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37 (02) e154-e160
- 9 Giolas TG, Wark DJ. Communication problems associated with unilateral hearing loss. J Speech Hear Disord 1967; 32 (04) 336-343
- 10 Hey M, Anft D, Hocke T, Scholz G, Hessel H, Begall K. [Influence of mixing ratios of a FM-system on speech understanding of CI-users]. Laryngorhinootologie 2009; 88 (05) 315-321 (in German)
- 11 Jacob R, Stelzig Y, Nopp P, Schleich P. [Audiological results with cochlear implants for single-sided deafness]. HNO 2011; 59 (05) 453-460 (in German)
- 12 Johnstone PM, Mills KE, Humphrey EL, Yeager KR, Jones EE, McElligott KJ, Pierce A, Agrawal S, Froeling C, Little J. Using microphone technology to improve speech perception in noise in children with cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (09) 814-825
- 13 Lieu JE. Speech-language and educational consequences of unilateral hearing loss in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130 (05) 524-530
- 14 Phonak AG. Phonak InsightVRoger Pen—Bridging the Understanding Gap. 028-0933-02/V1.00/2013-09/8G/. 2013 https://www.phonakpro.com/content/dam/phonakpro/gc_hq/en/resources/evidence/white_paper/documents/technical_paper/Insight_Roger_Pen_028-0933.pdf . Accessed June 20, 2017
- 15 Phonak AG. Roger™ Table Mic—User Guide. 2016 https://www.phonak.com/content/dam/phonak/HQ/en/solution/accessories/roger_table_mic/documents/user_guide_roger_table_mic_029-4004.pdf . Accessed June 5, 2018
- 16 Phonak AG. Roger™ Touchscreen Mic—UserGuide. 2017 https://www.phonak.com/content/dam/phonak/gc_se/en/solution/accessories/roger_technology/documents/User_Guide_Roger_Touchscreen_Mic_GB_V1%2000_029-3222-02.pdf . Accessed June 5, 2018
- 17 R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; (Online) 2014. https://www.R-project.org/ . Accessed June 20, 2018
- 18 Razza S, Zaccone M, Meli A, Cristofari E. Evaluation of speech reception threshold in noise in young Cochlear™ Nucleus® system 6 implant recipients using two different digital remote microphone technologies and a speech enhancement sound processing algorithm. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 103: 71-75
- 19 Schafer EC, Thibodeau LM. Speech recognition in noise in children with cochlear implants while listening in bilateral, bimodal, and FM system arrangements. Am J Audiol 2006; 15 (02) 114-126
- 20 Tavora-Vieira D, De Ceulaer G, Govaerts PJ, Rajan GP. Cochlear implantation improves localization ability in patients with unilateral deafness. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (03) e93-e98
- 21 Thibodeau L. Comparison of speech recognition with adaptive digital and FM remote microphone hearing assistance technology by listeners who use hearing aids. Am J Audiol 2014; 23 (02) 201-210
- 22 Vermeire K, Van de Heyning P. Binaural hearing after cochlear implantation in subjects with unilateral sensorineural deafness and tinnitus. Audiol Neurootol 2009; 14 (03) 163-171
- 23 Vincent C, Arndt S, Firszt JB, Fraysse B, Kitterick PT, Papsin BC, Snik A, Van de Heyning P, Deguine O, Marx M. Identification and evaluation of cochlear implant candidates with asymmetrical hearing loss. Audiol Neurootol 2015; 20 (1 Suppl): 87-89
- 24 Vroegop JL, Dingemanse JG, Homans NC, Goedegebure A. Evaluation of a wireless remote microphone in bimodal cochlear implant recipients. Int J Audiol 2017; 56 (09) 643-649
- 25 Wagener K, Brand T, Kollmeier B. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache III: Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol 1999; a; 38 (03) 86-95
- 26 Wagener K, Kuhnel V, Kollmeier B. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache I: Design des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol 1999; b; 38 (01) 4-15
- 27 Wesarg T, Arndt S, Wiebe K, Schmid F, Huber A, Mulder HE, Laszig R, Aschendorff A, Speck I. Speech recognition in noise in single-sided deaf cochlear implant recipients using digital wireless adaptive microphone technology. J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30 (07) 607-618
- 28 Wie OB, Pripp AH, Tvete O. Unilateral deafness in adults: effects on communication and social interaction. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2010; 119 (11) 772-781
- 29 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
- 30 Wolfe J, Morais M, Schafer E, Mills E, Mulder HE, Goldbeck F, Marquis F, John A, Hudson M, Peters BR, Lianos L. 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
- 31 Wolfe J, Schafer EC. Optimizing the benefit of sound processors coupled to personal FM systems. J Am Acad Audiol 2008; 19 (08) 585-594