Performance of Directional Microphones for Hearing Aids: Real-World versus Simulation

Compton-Conley, Cynthia; Neuman, Arlene C.; Killion, Mead C.; Levitt, Harry

doi:10.3766/jaaa.15.6.5

Cited by 79 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…R-Space TM ) has been introduced that accurately recorded and then reproduced/simulated a real-world restaurant for hearing-aid evaluations (Revit et al, 2002). A recent study by Compton-Conley et al (2004) reported that the performance of omnidirectional and directional microphones were similar when measured 'live' and in the 'laboratory' with this system. Thus, this new system may provide the researcher and clinician with a tool that provides greater external validity of hearing-aid performance when measured in the laboratory or clinic.…”

Section: Sumariomentioning

confidence: 79%

“…In this study, Compton-Conley et al (2004) reported (Figure 4, page 447) that the long-term speech spectra of the HINT sentences, HINT noise, and R-Space TM noise was very similar between approximately 500 to 8000 Hz. It is important to note that the Compton-Conley et al (2004) study was based on a smaller subject sample (N 012), normal-hearing listeners, and hearing aids that differed significantly from the hearing aids used in the current study.…”

Section: R-space Tm Restaurant Noisementioning

confidence: 82%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unaided and aided performance with a directional open-fit hearing aid

Valente

Mispagel

2008

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differences in performance between unaided and aided performance (omnidirectional and directional) were measured using an open-fit behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid. Twenty-six subjects without prior experience with amplification were fitted bilaterally using the manufacturer's recommended procedure. After wearing the hearing aids for one week, the fitting parameters were fine-tuned, based on subjective comments. Four weeks later, differences in performance between unaided and aided (omnidirectional and directional) were assessed by measuring reception thresholds for sentences (RTS in dB), using HINT sentences presented at 0 degrees with R-Space restaurant noise held constant at 65dBA and presented via eight loudspeakers set 45 degrees apart. In addition, the APHAB was administered to assess subjective impressions of the experimental aid. Results revealed that significant differences in RTS (in dB) were present between directional and omnidirectional performance, as well as directional and unaided performance. Aided omnidirectional performance, however, was not significantly different from unaided performance. These findings suggest for the hearing aids and experimental condition used in this study, a patient would require directional microphones in order to perform significantly better than unaided or aided with omnidirectional microphones, and that performance with an omnidirectional microphone would not be significantly better than unaided. Finally, the APHAB-aided scores were significantly better than unaided scores for the EC, BN, RV, and AV subscales indicating the subjects, on average, perceived the experimental aid to provide significantly better performance than unaided, and that aided performance was more aversive than unaided.

show abstract

Section: Sumariomentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: R-space Tm Restaurant Noisementioning

confidence: 82%

Unaided and aided performance with a directional open-fit hearing aid

Valente

Mispagel

2008

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The poorest SNR possible was 23.5 dB. The Hearing In Noise Test (Nilsson, Soli, & Sullivan, 1994) was presented in restaurant noise (Compton-Conley, Neuman, Killion, & Levitt, 2004) at 60 dB SPL using the R-Space (Revit, Schulein, & Julstrom, 2002). The R-Space is a system with eight loudspeakers positioned 360°around the participant, each 24 in.…”

Section: Sound-field Detection Threshold and Speech Recognition Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Longitudinal Study in Children With Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implants: Time Course for the Second Implanted Ear and Bilateral Performance

Reeder

Firszt

Cadieux

et al. 2017

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a Purpose: Whether, and if so when, a second-ear cochlear implant should be provided to older, unilaterally implanted children is an ongoing clinical question. This study evaluated rate of speech recognition progress for the second implanted ear and with bilateral cochlear implants in older sequentially implanted children and evaluated localization abilities. Method: A prospective longitudinal study included 24 bilaterally implanted children (mean ear surgeries at 5.11 and 14.25 years). Test intervals were every 3-6 months through 24 months postbilateral. Test conditions were each ear and bilaterally for speech recognition and localization.Results: Overall, the rate of progress for the second implanted ear was gradual. Improvements in quiet continued through the second year of bilateral use. Improvements in noise were more modest and leveled off during the second year. On all measures, results from the second ear were poorer than the first. Bilateral scores were better than either ear alone for all measures except sentences in quiet and localization. Conclusions: Older sequentially implanted children with several years between surgeries may obtain speech understanding in the second implanted ear; however, performance may be limited and rate of progress gradual. Continued contralateral ear hearing aid use and reduced time between surgeries may enhance outcomes. Bilateral cochlear implantation in children has become more prevalent (Peters, Wyss, & Manrique, 2010) with sequential implantation more common than simultaneous procedures. The dominance of sequential implantation has been driven by the many unilateral pediatric cochlear implant (CI) recipients who were implanted before bilateral implantation was considered and the fact that worldwide, the majority of children continue to be implanted unilaterally (Cullington, Bele, Brinton, & Lutman, 2013;Peters et al., 2010). During the decision process for individual children about second-side implantation, clinicians and families must consider the type and extent of benefit to be expected, for both the second implanted ear and bilaterally, and the rate of improvement to expect after varied years of unilateral CI experience.Pediatric studies have focused on bilateral compared with unilateral performance in the same individual using one of three study designs: bilateral compared with the first implanted (CI1) ear, bilateral compared to the better performing ear (Galvin, Mok, & Dowell, 2007;Kim et al., 2009;Kühn-Inacker, Shehata-Dieler, Müller, & Helms, 2004;Wolfe et al., 2007), or bilateral compared with each ear individually (Galvin, Hughes, & Mok, 2010;Galvin, Mok, Dowell, & Briggs, 2008;Peters, Litovsky, Parkinson, & Lake, 2007;Steffens et al., 2008; for reviews of pediatric sequential bilateral studies, see Dowell et al., 2011;Johnston, Durieux-Smith, Angus, O'Connor, & Fitzpatrick, 2009;Lammers, Venekamp, Grolman, & van der Heijden, 2014;Sparreboom et al., 2010). Most published studies report results from a single time point with participants having varied amounts ...

show abstract

“…Signal delivery was accomplished with the R-SPACE (Revitronix, Braintree, VT) sound-simulation system (for greater detail, see Compton-Conley, Neuman, Killion, & Levitt, 2004). This system consists of an eight-loudspeaker array, which is placed in a circular pattern around the subject.…”

Section: Test Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using ILD or ITD Cues for Sound Source Localization and Speech Understanding in a Complex Listening Environment by Listeners With Bilateral and With Hearing-Preservation Cochlear Implants

Loiselle

Dorman

Yost

et al. 2016

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To assess the role of interaural time differences and interaural level differences in (a) sound-source localization, and (b) speech understanding in a cocktail party listening environment for listeners with bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) and for listeners with hearingpreservation CIs. Methods: Eleven bilateral listeners with MED-EL (Durham, NC) CIs and 8 listeners with hearing-preservation CIs with symmetrical low frequency, acoustic hearing using the MED-EL or Cochlear device were evaluated using 2 tests designed to task binaural hearing, localization, and a simulated cocktail party. Access to interaural cues for localization was constrained by the use of low-pass, highpass, and wideband noise stimuli.Results: Sound-source localization accuracy for listeners with bilateral CIs in response to the high-pass noise stimulus and sound-source localization accuracy for the listeners with hearing-preservation CIs in response to the low-pass noise stimulus did not differ significantly. Speech understanding in a cocktail party listening environment improved for all listeners when interaural cues, either interaural time difference or interaural level difference, were available. Conclusions:The findings of the current study indicate that similar degrees of benefit to sound-source localization and speech understanding in complex listening environments are possible with 2 very different rehabilitation strategies: the provision of bilateral CIs and the preservation of hearing.T he information embodied in interaural time differences (ITDs) and interaural level differences (ILDs) (a) allows listeners with normal hearing (NH) to locate sound sources on the horizontal plane, and (b) has a significant role in generating high levels of speech recognition in complex listening environments, for example, at a cocktail

show abstract

Performance of Directional Microphones for Hearing Aids: Real-World versus Simulation

Cited by 79 publications

References 14 publications

Unaided and aided performance with a directional open-fit hearing aid

Unaided and aided performance with a directional open-fit hearing aid

A Longitudinal Study in Children With Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implants: Time Course for the Second Implanted Ear and Bilateral Performance

Using ILD or ITD Cues for Sound Source Localization and Speech Understanding in a Complex Listening Environment by Listeners With Bilateral and With Hearing-Preservation Cochlear Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About