Speech understanding in noise with the Roger Pen, Naida CI Q70 processor, and integrated Roger 17 receiver in a multi-talker network

Ceulaer, Geert De; Bestel, Julie; Mülder, Hans E.; Goldbeck, Felix; Varebeke, Sebastien Pierre Janssens de; Govaerts, Paul

doi:10.1007/s00405-015-3643-4

Cited by 23 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Because of the increased distance of the speakers to the MM the SNR will decrease, whereby speech perception, even with the MM, will become difficult. This is comparable with the results of de Ceulaer et al (2015) who used a multiple talker network test set up with three speech sources to simulate a group conversation. They found only a limited improvement in SRT when using one Phonak Roger Pen, but a considerable improvement by using three Roger Pens.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…By acquiring the signal at or near the source, the SNR at the listener's ear is improved and consequently the negative effects of ambient noise, as well as those of distance and reverberation, are reduced. Previous research has shown considerable improvement in unilateral CI users' speech recognition in noise using RF systems (Schafer & Thibodeau, 2004, Schafer et al, 2009de Ceulaer et al, 2015). These studies are laboratory studies with a multiple loudspeaker set up.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Noise is coming from behind or next to the subjects. In the study of de Ceulaer et al (2015), a diffuse noise field is created with four loudspeakers with speech coming from three loudspeakers. Bimodal users were instructed to take their HA off during the testing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of a wireless remote microphone in bimodal cochlear implant recipients

Vroegop

Dingemanse

Homans

et al. 2017

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the benefit of a wireless remote microphone (MM) for speech recognition in noise in bimodal adult cochlear implant (CI) users both in a test setting and in daily life. Design: This prospective study measured speech reception thresholds in noise in a repeated measures design with factors including bimodal hearing and MM use. The participants also had a 3-week trial period at home with the MM. Study sample: Thirteen post-lingually deafened adult bimodal CI users. Results: A significant improvement in SRT of 5.4 dB was found between the use of the CI with the MM and the use of the CI without the MM. By also pairing the MM to the hearing aid (HA) another improvement in SRT of 2.2 dB was found compared to the situation with the MM paired to the CI alone. In daily life, participants reported better speech perception for various challenging listening situations, when using the MM in the bimodal condition. Conclusion: There is a clear advantage of bimodal listening (CI and HA) compared to CI alone when applying advanced wireless remote microphone techniques to improve speech understanding in adult bimodal CI users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of a wireless remote microphone in bimodal cochlear implant recipients

Vroegop

Dingemanse

Homans

et al. 2017

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are other concerns as well. Although there are numerous studies showing the benefit of RM technology for individuals with CIs, there is a lack of information specifically with the use of the Cochlear MM21 (Fitzpatrick et al, 2009;Wolfe et al, 2013;De Ceulaer et al, 2016). It is beyond the scope of this article to dissect all of these questions, but further research in these areas is necessary.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Verification Protocol for Signal Transparency Using the Cochlear Mini-Microphone 21 and Digital Modulation Transmitter and Receiver with Cochlear Implants

Sousa¹,

Nair²,

Wannagot

2018

j am acad audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Guidelines established by the American Academy of Audiology (AAA) currently recommend behavioral testing when fitting frequency-modulated (FM) systems to individuals with cochlear implants (CIs). A protocol for completing electroacoustic measures on CI sound processors has not yet been established or validated when fitting either FM or digital-modulated (DM) systems, mini microphones, or mini microphones coupled to DM systems. In response, professionals have used or altered the AAA (2008) electroacoustic verification steps for fitting FM systems to hearing aids when fitting FM/DM systems, mini microphones, or mini microphones coupled to FM/DM systems to CI sound processors. Purpose: The purpose of this research is to determine if the electroacoustic verification guidelines established by AAA (2008) for fitting FM systems to hearing aids are feasible and verifiable when fitting mini microphones and mini microphones coupled to DM systems to CI sound processors. Research Design: Electroacoustic measures were conducted on 51 Cochlear Nucleus 6/CP910 sound processors, one Cochlear Wireless Mini Microphone 2+ (MM2+), and one Phonak DM System (one Roger Inspiro transmitter and one Roger X receiver) using an adapted AAA (2008) protocol (Nair et al, 2017). Phonak?s recommended default receiver gain setting was used with the Roger X receiver and adjusted if necessary to achieve transparency. Transparency refers to when the signal output of the device is the same when coupled and when not coupled to remote microphone technology. Study Sample: Electroacoustic measures were conducted on 51 Cochlear Nucleus 6/CP910 sound processors. In this study, the 51 Cochlear Nucleus 6/CP910 sound processors were either streaming to the Cochlear MM2+ or streaming to the MM2+ coupled to a Phonak DM system. Data Collection and Analysis: In a clinical setting, using the AAA (2008) protocol for electroacoustic measurements when fitting FM systems to hearing aids, electroacoustic measurements using various equipment (MM2+ and Phonak DM system) were performed on 51 Cochlear Nucleus 6/CP910 sound processors using the Audioscan Verifit to determine transparency and verify DM advantage, comparing speech inputs (65 dB SPL) in an effort to achieve equal outputs. If transparency was not achieved when the CI sound processor was streaming to the MM2+ coupled to the Phonak DM system at the default receiver gain, adjustments were made to the Roger X receiver?s gain. The integrity of the signal was monitored with the manufacturer?s monitor earphones. Results: Using the AAA (2008) hearing aid protocol, when the Cochlear Nucleus 6/CP910 sound processor was streaming to the Cochlear MM2+, transparency was achieved for 50 of 51 CI sound processors. Again, using the AAA (2008) protocol when the Cochlear Nucleus 6/CP910 sound processor was streaming to the Cochlear MM2+ coupled to the Phonak DM system at Phonak?s recommended default receiver gain, 28 sound processors achieved transparency. After the receiver gain was adjusted, the...

show abstract

“…De Ceulaer et al 5 recognized the need to improve communication in group settings and evaluated the benefit of the Roger Pen transmitter microphone in a multitalker network with CI users. Using the Naida Q70 CI and Phonak-integrated Roger 17 receivers, 12 adults repeated sentences from a Flemish sentences-in-noise test presented randomly from one of three speakers to simulate a small group conversation in multitalker babble noise.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Thibodeau

2020

J Am Acad Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Speech understanding in noise with the Roger Pen, Naida CI Q70 processor, and integrated Roger 17 receiver in a multi-talker network

Cited by 23 publications

References 19 publications

Evaluation of a wireless remote microphone in bimodal cochlear implant recipients

Evaluation of a wireless remote microphone in bimodal cochlear implant recipients

Verification Protocol for Signal Transparency Using the Cochlear Mini-Microphone 21 and Digital Modulation Transmitter and Receiver with Cochlear Implants

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About