J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31(04): 262-270
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.19009
Research Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

An Integrative Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Directional Microphone and Noise-Reduction Algorithm under Realistic Signal-to-Noise Ratios

Francis Kuk
1   Widex Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), Lisle, IL
Christopher Slugocki
1   Widex Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), Lisle, IL
Petri Korhonen
1   Widex Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), Lisle, IL
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
15 April 2020 (online)


Background Many studies on the efficacy of directional microphones (DIRMs) and noise-reduction (NR) algorithms were not conducted under realistic signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) conditions. A Repeat-Recall Test (RRT) was developed previously to partially address this issue.

Purpose This study evaluated whether the RRT could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the efficacy of a DIRM and NR algorithm under realistic SNRs. Possible interaction with listener working memory capacity (WMC) was assessed.

Research Design This study uses a double-blind, within-subject repeated measures design.

Study Sample Nineteen listeners with a moderate degree of hearing loss participated.

Data Collection and Analysis The RRT was administered with participants wearing the study hearing aids (HAs) under two microphones (omnidirectional versus directional) by two NR (on versus off) conditions. Speech was presented from 0° at 75 dB SPL and a continuous noise from 180° at SNRs of 0, 5, 10, and 15 dB. The order of SNR and HA conditions was counterbalanced across listeners. Each test condition was completed twice in two 2-hour sessions separated by one month.

Results The recall scores of listeners were used to group listeners into good and poor WMC groups. Analysis using linear mixed-effects models revealed significant effects of context, SNR, and microphone for all four measures (repeat, recall, listening effort, and tolerable time). NR was only significant on the listening effort scale in the DIRM mode at an SNR of 5 dB. Listeners with good WMC performed better on all measures of the RRT and benefitted more from context. Although DIRM benefitted listeners with good and poor WMC, the benefits differed by context and SNR.

Conclusions The RRT confirmed the efficacy of DIRM and NR on several outcome measures under realistic SNRs. It also highlighted interactions between WMC and sentence context on feature efficacy.


All authors are employees of Widex A/S.

  • References

  • 1 Akeroyd M. Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol 2008; 47 (2, Suppl): 53-71
  • 2 Baddeley A, Hitch G. Working memory. In: Bower GH. , ed. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. vol. 8. London, UK: Academic Press; 1974: 47-89
  • 3 Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Software 2015; 67: 1-48
  • 4 Besser J, Koelewijn T, Zekveld A, Kramer S, Festen J. How linguistic closure and verbal working memory relate to speech understanding in noise - a review. Trends Amplif 2013; 17 (02) 75-93
  • 5 Brons I, Houben R, Dreschler W. Effects of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, perceived listening effort, and personal preference in hearing-impaired listeners. Trends Hear 2014; 18: 1-10
  • 6 Carson N, Leach L, Murphy K. A re-examination of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) cutoff scores. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2018; 33 (02) 379-388
  • 7 Chong F, Jenstad L. A critical review of hearing aid single microphone noise reduction studies in adults and children. Disabil Rehab Assist Technol 2018; 13 (06) 600-608
  • 8 Davis M, Ford M, Kherif F, Johnsrude I. Does semantic context benefit speech understanding through “top-down” processes? Evidence from time-resolved sparse fMRI. J Cognit Neurosci 2011; 23 (12) 3914-3932
  • 9 Desjardins J. The effects of hearing aid directional microphone and noise reduction processing on listening effort in older adults with hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (01) 29-41
  • 10 Desjardins J, Doherty K. The effect of hearing aid noise reduction on listening effort in hearing-impaired adults. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (06) 600-610
  • 11 Freyaldenhoven M, Nabelek A, Burchfield S, Thelin J. Acceptable noise level as a measure of directional hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16: 228-236
  • 12 Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings-patterns of candidature. Int J Audiol 2006; 45: 153-171
  • 13 Hoetink A, Korossy L, Dreschler W. Classification of steady state gain reduction produced by amplitude modulation based noise reduction in digital hearing aids. Int J Audiol 2009; 48 (07) 444-455
  • 14 Holmes E, Folkeard P, Johnsrude I, Scollie S. Semantic context improves speech intelligibility and reduces listening effort for listeners with hearing impairment. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (07) 483-492
  • 15 Keidser G, Dillon H, Flax M, Ching T, Carmen S. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiol Res 2011; 1 (01) e24
  • 16 Kuk F, Kollofski C, Brown S, Melim A, Rosenthal A. Use of a digital hearing aid with directional microphones in school-aged children. J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10: 535-548
  • 17 Kuk F, Keenan D, Sonne M, Ludvigsen C. Efficacy of an open-fitting hearing aid. Hear Rev 2005; a 12 (02) 26-32
  • 18 Kuk F, Peeters H, Keenan D, Baekgaard L. Timing is (almost) everything - fully adaptive directional microphone. Hear Rev 2005; b 12 (08) 24-29
  • 19 Kuk F, Paludan-Muller C. Noise management algorithm may improve speech intelligibility in noise. Hear J 2006; 59 (04) 62-65
  • 20 Kuk F, Slugocki C, Korhonen P, Seper E, Hau O. Evaluation of the efficacy of a dual variable-speed compressor over a single fixed speed compressor. J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30 (07) 590-606
  • 21 Lunner T. Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (1, suppl): S49-S58
  • 22 Lunner T, Rudner M, Rosenbom T, Agren J, Ng E. Using speech recall in hearing aid fitting and outcome evaluation under ecological test conditions. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (1, suppl): 145S-154S
  • 23 Lunner T, Sundewall-Thoren E. Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-innoise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (07) 604-617
  • 24 Magnusson L, Claesson A, Persson M, Tengstrand T. Speech recognition in noise using bilateral open-fit hearing aids: the limited benefit of directional microphones and noise reduction. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (01) 29-36
  • 25 Miller C, Bentler R, Wu Y, Lewis J, Tremblay K. Output signal-to-noise ratio and speech perception in noise: effects of algorithm. Int J Audiol 2017; 256 (08) 568-579
  • 26 Nasreddine Z, Phillips N, Bedirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, Cummings JL, Chertkow H. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53 (04) 695-699
  • 27 Neher T, Wagener K, Fischer R-L. Hearing aid noise suppression and working memory function. Int JAudiol 2018; 57 (05) 335-344
  • 28 Ng E, Rudner M, Lunner T, Pedersen M, Ronnberg J. Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (07) 433-441
  • 29 Ng E, Rudner M, Lunner T, Ronnberg J. Noise reduction improves memory for target language speech in competing native but not foreign language speech. Ear Hear 2015; 36: 82-91
  • 30 Obleser J, Kotz S. Expectancy constraints in degraded speech modulate the language comprehension network. Cereb Cortex 2010; 20 (03) 633-640
  • 31 Oeding K, Valente M. Differences in sensation level between the Widex SoundTracker and two real-ear analyzers. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (08) 660-670
  • 32 Ohlenforst B, Wendt D, Kramer S, Naylor G, Zekveld A, Lunner T. Impact of SNR, masker type and noise reduction processing on sentence recognition performance and listening effort as indicated by the pupil dilation response. Hear Res 2018; 365: 90-99
  • 33 Pichora-Fuller K, Kramer S, Eckert M, Edwards B, Hornsby B, Humes L, Lemke U, Lunner T, Matthen M, Mackersie C, Naylor G, Phillips N, Richter M, Rudner M, Sommers M, Tremblay K, Wingfield A. Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear 2016; 37 (1, suppl): S5-S27
  • 34 Pichora-Fuller K, Schneider B, Daneman M. How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97 (01) 593-608
  • 35 Ricketts T. Directional hearing aids. Trends Amplif 2001; 5: 139-176
  • 36 Ricketts T, Hornsby B. Directional hearing aid benefit in listeners with severe hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2006; 45: 190-197
  • 37 Ronnberg J, Rudner M, Foo C, Lunner T. Cognition counts: a working memory system for Ease of Language Understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol 2008; 47 (2, suppl): S99-S105
  • 38 Rudner M, Ronnberg J, Lunner T. Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol 2011; 22 (03) 156-167
  • 39 Slugocki C, Kuk F, Korhonen P. Development and clinical applications of the ORCA repeat and recall test (RRT). Hear Rev 2018; 25 (12) 22-26
  • 40 Smeds K, Wolters F. Towards a firm grip on auditory reality. Hear Rev 2017; 24 (12) 20-25
  • 41 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
  • 42 Souza P, Arehart K, Neher T. Working memory and hearing aid processing: literature findings, future directions, and clinical applications. Front Psychol 2015; 6: 1-12
  • 43 Studebaker G. A rationalized arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 1985; 28: 455-462
  • 44 Van den Noort M, Bosch P, Haverkort M, Hugdahl K. A standard computerized version of the Reading Span Test in different languages. Eur J Psychol Assess 2008; 24 (01) 35-42
  • 45 Wang D, Kjems U, Pedersen M, Boldt J, Lunner T. Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking. J Acoust Soc Am 2009; 125 (04) 236-2347
  • 46 Wendt D, Hietkamp RK, Lunner T. Impact of noise and noise reduction on processing effort: a pupillometry study. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (06) 690-700
  • 47 Winn M. Rapid release from listening effort resulting from semantic context, and effects of spectral degradation and cochlear implants. Trends Hear 2016; 20: 1-17
  • 48 Wu Y, Stangl E, Chipara O, Hasan S, 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
  • 49 Zekveld A, Rudner M, Johnsrude I, Festen J, van Beek J, Ronnberg J. The influence of semantically related and unrelated text cues on the intelligibility of sentences in noise. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (06) e16-e25