Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(04): 219-228
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1722990
Research Article

Testing Speech Perception with Cochlear Implants Through Digital Audio Streaming in a Virtual Sound Booth: A Feasibility Study

Chen Chen
1   Advanced Bionics, LLC, Valencia, California
,
Amy L. Stein
1   Advanced Bionics, LLC, Valencia, California
,
Michelle L. Hughes
2   Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska
,
Hayley R. Morris
1   Advanced Bionics, LLC, Valencia, California
3   Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
,
Leonid M. Litvak
1   Advanced Bionics, LLC, Valencia, California
,
Daniel M. Zeitler
4   Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Listen for Life Center, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was funded by Advanced Bionics, LLC.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective For patients who have received cochlear implants (CIs), speech-perception testing requires specialized equipment. This limits locations where these services can be provided, which can introduce barriers for provision of care. Providing speech test stimuli directly to the CI via wireless digital audio streaming (DAS) or wired direct audio input (DAI) allows for testing without the need for a sound booth (SB). A few studies have investigated the use of DAI for testing speech perception in CIs, but none have evaluated DAS. The goal of this study was to compare speech perception testing in CI users via DAS versus a traditional SB to determine if differences exist between the two presentation modes. We also sought to determine whether pre-processing the DAS signal with room acoustics (reverberation and noise floor) to emulate the SB environment would affect performance differences between the SB and DAS.

Design In Experiment 1, speech perception was measured for monosyllabic words in quiet and sentences in quiet and in noise. Scores were obtained in a SB and compared to those obtained via DAS with unprocessed speech (DAS-U) for 11 adult CI users (12 ears). In Experiment 2, speech perception was measured for sentences in noise, where both the speech and noise stimuli were pre-processed to emulate the SB environment. Scores were obtained for 11 adult CI users (12 ears) in the SB, via DAS-U, and via DAS with the processed speech (DAS-P).

Results For Experiment 1, there was no significant difference between SB and DAS-U conditions for words or sentences in quiet. However, DAS-U scores were significantly better than SB scores for sentences in noise. For Experiment 2, there was no significant difference between the SB and DAS-P conditions. Similar to Experiment 1, DAS-U scores were significantly better than SB or DAS-P scores.

Conclusions By pre-processing the test materials to emulate the noise and reverberation characteristics of a traditional SB, we can account for differences in speech-perception scores between those obtained via DAS and in a SB.

Keywords

cochlear implant - direct audio input - speech perception - wireless streaming - sound booth


Publication History

Received: 29 May 2020

Accepted: 25 September 2020

Article published online:
20 May 2021

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Brook LJ, Williams PA. Developing a Mobile Audiometric Sound Booth Application for Apple IOS Devices. Proceedings of the 2nd Australian eHealth Informatics and Security Conference, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia, 2013. Doi: 10.4225/75/57980c9531b3d
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Peer S, Fagan JJ. Hearing loss in the developing world: evaluating the iPhone mobile device as a screening tool. S Afr Med J 2015; 105 (01) 35-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Swanepoel W, Maclennan-Smith F, Hall JW. Diagnostic pure-tone audiometry in schools: mobile testing without a sound-treated environment. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (10) 992-1000
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Eikelboom RH, Jayakody DM, Swanepoel DW, Chang S, Atlas MD. Validation of remote mapping of cochlear implants. J Telemed Telecare 2014; 20 (04) 171-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Goehring JL, Hughes ML. Measuring sound-processor threshold levels for pediatric cochlear implant recipients using conditioned play audiometry via telepractice. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2017; 60 (03) 732-740
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hughes ML, Goehring JL, Baudhuin JL. et al. Use of telehealth for research and clinical measures in cochlear implant recipients: a validation study. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2012; 55 (04) 1112-1127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hughes ML, Goehring JL, Sevier JD, Choi S. Measuring sound-processor thresholds for pediatric cochlear implant recipients using visual reinforcement audiometry via telepractice. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2018; 61 (08) 2115-2125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hughes ML, Sevier JD, Choi S. Techniques for remotely programming children with cochlear implants using pediatric audiological methods via telepractice. Am J Audiol 2018; 27 (3S): 385-390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wesarg T, Wasowski A, Skarzynski H. et al. Remote fitting in nucleus cochlear implant recipients. Acta Otolaryngol 2010; 130 (12) 1379-1388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 de Graaff F, Huysmans E, Qazi OU. et al. The development of remote speech recognition tests for adult cochlear implant users: the effect of presentation mode of the noise and a reliable method to deliver sound in home environments. Audiol Neurotol 2016; 21 (Suppl. 01) 48-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 de Graaff F, Huysmans E, Merkus P, Theo Goverts S, Smits C. Assessment of speech recognition abilities in quiet and in noise: a comparison between self-administered home testing and testing in the clinic for adult cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (11) 872-880
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sevier JD, Choi S, Hughes ML. Use of direct-connect for remote speech-perception testing in cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (05) 1162-1173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hazrati O, Loizou PC. The combined effects of reverberation and noise on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners. Int J Audiol 2012; 51 (06) 437-443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hu Y, Kokkinakis K. Effects of early and late reflections on intelligibility of reverberated speech by cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 135 (01) EL22-EL28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Iglehart F. Speech perception in classroom acoustics by children with cochlear implants and with typical hearing. Am J Audiol 2016; 25 (02) 100-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kokkinakis K, Hazrati O, Loizou PC. A channel-selection criterion for suppressing reverberation in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 129 (05) 3221-3232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Neuman AC, Wroblewski M, Hajicek J, Rubinstein A. Measuring speech recognition in children with cochlear implants in a virtual classroom. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2012; 55 (02) 532-540
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Chan JC, Freed DJ, Vermiglio AJ, Soli SD. Evaluation of binaural functions in bilateral cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol 2008; 47 (06) 296-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM. et al. Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (01) 112-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Peterson GE, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962; 27 (01) 62-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dreschler WA, Verschuure H, Ludvigsen C, Westermann S. ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing aid assessment. Audiology 2001; 40: 148-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 International Organization for Standardization. Acoustics: Measurement of the reverberation time of rooms with reference to other acoustical parameters. International Organization for Standardization, 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Studebaker GA. A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 1985; 28 (03) 455-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Myhrum M, Tvete OE, Heldahl MG, Moen I, Soli SD. The Norwegian hearing in noise test for children. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (01) 80-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Goehring JL, Hughes ML, Baudhuin JL. et al. The effect of technology and testing environment on speech perception using telehealth with cochlear implant recipients. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2012; 55 (05) 1373-1386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar