Benefits in Speech Recognition in Noise with Remote Wireless Microphones in Group Settings

Abstract

Background Although hearing aids (HAs) and cochlear implants (CIs) can provide significant benefits to persons with hearing loss, users frequently report difficulty hearing in noisy environments, particularly when there are multiple talkers. Little is known about the benefits provided by currently available wireless microphones in multitalker situations.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the benefits received in speech recognition in noise by adults with hearing loss when using two different wireless microphone types in a simulated group setting.

Research Design A quasi-experimental, repeated-measures design was used where performance in a control condition, HA/CI alone, was compared with performance in two wireless microphone intervention conditions.

Study Sample Participants included ten listeners, aged 20-92 years, with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who were experienced HA or CI users.

Intervention The two wireless microphones by Phonak, Roger Pen, and Roger Select used the same digital modulation protocol to transmit the signal to compatible receivers. However, the Roger Pen operated in a fixed omnidirectional mode, whereas the Roger Select operated in an adaptive directional mode.

Data Collection and Analysis Participants were asked to repeat Hearing in Noise Test sentences presented in restaurant noise in three conditions: HA/CI alone, HA/CI with a Roger Pen, or HA/CI with a Roger Select microphone placed in the center of a round table. Sentences were presented from one of five loudspeakers equally spaced with the participant, while restaurant noise was presented on each side at four signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), including +5, 0, −5, and −10 dB. A two-way, repeated-measures analysis of variance was performed with main effects of listening condition and noise level.

Results Significantly  greater speech recognition performance was achieved with the wireless microphones than with listening with just the HA or CI. Furthermore, at the −5- and −10-dB SNR conditions, the Roger Select resulted in significantly better performance than the Roger Pen microphone.

Conclusions The results suggest that the Roger Select microphone can provide significant benefits in speech recognition in noise over the use of HA/CI alone (61%) and also significant benefits over the use of a Roger Pen (16%) in a simulated group dining experience.

Keywords

hearing loss - speech perception - wireless technology

• References

• 1 Baskent D, Clarke J, Pals C, Benard MR, Bhargava P, Saija J, Sarampalis A, Wagner A, Gaudrain E. Cognitive compensation of speech perception with hearing impairment, cochlear implants, and aging: how and to what degree can it be achieved?. Trends in Hear 2016; 20: 1-16
• 2 Biswas D, Lund K, Szocs C. Sounds like a healthy retail atmospheric strategy: effects of ambient music and background noise on food sales. J Acad Mark Sci 2019; 47: 33-55
• 3 Boothroyd A. Hearing aid accessories for adults: the remote FM microphone. Ear Hear 2004; 25: 22-33
• 4 Byrne D, Dillon H, Ching T, Katsch R, Keidser G. NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12: 3751
• 5 De Ceulaer G, Bestel J, Mülder H, Goldbeck F, de Varebeke S, Govaerts P. Speech understanding in noise with the Roger Pen, Naida CIQ70 processor, and integrated Roger 17 receiver in a multi-talker network. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol 2016; 273: 1107-1114
• 6 Gigandet X, Fulton B, Smith C. . Roger multibeam technology - enhancing the group listening experience. Phonak Insight. 2018. https://www.phonakpro.com/au/en/products/wireless-accessories/roger-select/evidence-roger-select.html . Accessed June 1, 2019
• 7 Hawkins DB. Comparisons of speech recognition in noise by mildly-to-moderately hearing-impaired children using hearing aids and FM systems. J Speech Hear Disord 1984; 49: 409-418
• 8 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VIII: customer satisfaction with hearing aids is slowly increasing. Hear J 2010; 63: 11-19
• 9 Land V, Thibodeau L. Accuracy of speech recognition in a five-speaker array using a hearing assistive device. Indianapolis, IN: 2017
• 10 Lewis M, Crandell C, Valente M, Horn J. Speech perception in noise: directional microphones versus frequency modulation (FM) systems. J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15: 426-439
• 11 Nilsson M, Soli S, Sullivan J. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception threshold in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95: 1085-1099
• 12 Sherbecoe RL, Studebaker GA. Supplementary formulas and tables for calculating and interconverting speech recognition scores in transformed arcsine units. Int J Audiol 2004; 43: 442-448
• 13 Steinberg Media Technologies. Cubase Element 8. Hamburg, Germany: ; 2015. . https://www.steinberg.net/en/support/downloads/cubase_8.html . Accessed May 1, 2015
• 14 Thibodeau L. Benefits of adaptive FM systems on speech recognition in noise for listeners who use hearing aids. Am J Audiol 2010; 19: 1-10
• 15 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: 201-211