Evaluation of different signal processing options in unilateral and bilateral cochlear freedom implant recipients using R-Space background noise
- PMID: 21463562
- PMCID: PMC3632371
- DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.22.2.2
Evaluation of different signal processing options in unilateral and bilateral cochlear freedom implant recipients using R-Space background noise
Abstract
Background: Difficulty understanding in background noise is a common complaint of cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Programming options are available to improve speech recognition in noise for CI users including automatic dynamic range optimization (ADRO), autosensitivity control (ASC), and a two-stage adaptive beamforming algorithm (BEAM). However, the processing option that results in the best speech recognition in noise is unknown. In addition, laboratory measures of these processing options often show greater degrees of improvement than reported by participants in everyday listening situations. To address this issue, Compton-Conley and colleagues developed a test system to replicate a restaurant environment. The R-SPACE™ consists of eight loudspeakers positioned in a 360 degree arc and utilizes a recording made at a restaurant of background noise.
Purpose: The present study measured speech recognition in the R-SPACE with four processing options: standard dual-port directional (STD), ADRO, ASC, and BEAM.
Research design: A repeated-measures, within-subject design was used to evaluate the four different processing options at two noise levels.
Study sample: Twenty-seven unilateral and three bilateral adult Nucleus Freedom CI recipients.
Intervention: The participants' everyday program (with no additional processing) was used as the STD program. ADRO, ASC, and BEAM were added individually to the STD program to create a total of four programs.
Data collection and analysis: Participants repeated Hearing in Noise Test sentences presented at 0 degrees azimuth with R-SPACE restaurant noise at two noise levels, 60 and 70 dB SPL. The reception threshold for sentences (RTS) was obtained for each processing condition and noise level.
Results: In 60 dB SPL noise, BEAM processing resulted in the best RTS, with a significant improvement over STD and ADRO processing. In 70 dB SPL noise, ASC and BEAM processing had significantly better mean RTSs compared to STD and ADRO processing. Comparison of noise levels showed that STD and BEAM processing resulted in significantly poorer RTSs in 70 dB SPL noise compared to the performance with these processing conditions in 60 dB SPL noise. Bilateral participants demonstrated a bilateral improvement compared to the better monaural condition for both noise levels and all processing conditions, except ASC in 60 dB SPL noise.
Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the use of processing options that utilize noise reduction, like those available in ASC and BEAM, improve a CI recipient's ability to understand speech in noise in listening situations similar to those experienced in the real world. The choice of the best processing option is dependent on the noise level, with BEAM best at moderate noise levels and ASC best at loud noise levels for unilateral CI recipients. Therefore, multiple noise programs or a combination of processing options may be necessary to provide CI users with the best performance in a variety of listening situations.
American Academy of Audiology.
Figures







Similar articles
-
The Effects of Preprocessing Strategies for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients.J Am Acad Audiol. 2016 Feb;27(2):85-102. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.14058. J Am Acad Audiol. 2016. PMID: 26905529 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of different signal-processing options on speech-in-noise recognition for cochlear implant recipients with the cochlear CP810 speech processor.J Am Acad Audiol. 2014 Apr;25(4):367-79. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.25.4.8. J Am Acad Audiol. 2014. PMID: 25126684
-
Improving speech perception in noise for children with cochlear implants.J Am Acad Audiol. 2011 Oct;22(9):623-632. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.22.9.7. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011. PMID: 22192607
-
Evaluation of Automatic Directional Processing with Cochlear Implant Recipients.J Am Acad Audiol. 2021 Sep;32(8):478-486. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1733967. Epub 2021 Dec 29. J Am Acad Audiol. 2021. PMID: 34965594
-
A systematic review of the impact of adjusting input dynamic range (IDR), electrical threshold (T) level and rate of stimulation on speech perception ability in cochlear implant users.Int J Audiol. 2019 Jun;58(6):317-325. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2018.1564844. Epub 2019 Apr 2. Int J Audiol. 2019. PMID: 30939068
Cited by
-
The Effects of Preprocessing Strategies for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients.J Am Acad Audiol. 2016 Feb;27(2):85-102. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.14058. J Am Acad Audiol. 2016. PMID: 26905529 Free PMC article.
-
When to replace legacy cochlear implants for technological upgrades: Indications and outcomes.Laryngoscope. 2019 Mar;129(3):748-753. doi: 10.1002/lary.27528. Epub 2018 Nov 28. Laryngoscope. 2019. PMID: 30484865 Free PMC article.
-
Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies I: Instrumental Evaluation.Trends Hear. 2015 Dec 30;19:2331216515617916. doi: 10.1177/2331216515617916. Trends Hear. 2015. PMID: 26721920 Free PMC article.
-
[Technical advancements in cochlear implants : State of the art].HNO. 2017 Apr;65(4):276-289. doi: 10.1007/s00106-017-0339-7. HNO. 2017. PMID: 28303288 Review. German.
-
Advanced beamformers for cochlear implant users: acute measurement of speech perception in challenging listening conditions.PLoS One. 2014 Apr 22;9(4):e95542. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095542. eCollection 2014. PLoS One. 2014. PMID: 24755864 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Agnew J. Amplifier and circuit algorithms for contemporary hearing aids. In: Valente M, editor. Hearing Aids: Standards, Options, and Limitations. 2nd ed Thieme Medical Publishers; New York: 2002a. pp. 101–142.
-
- Agnew J. Hearing aid adjustments through potentiometer and switch options. In: Valente M, editor. Hearing Aids: Standards, Options, and Limitations. 2nd ed Thieme Medical Publishers; New York: 2002b. pp. 143–177.
-
- American National Standards Institute . Maximum permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric test rooms (ANSI S3.1-1999, R 2008) Accredited Standards Committee S3, Bioacoustics; Washington, DC: 1999.
-
- Amlani AM. Efficacy of directional microphone hearing aids: A meta-analytic perspective. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001;12:202–214. - PubMed
-
- Basura GJ, Eapen R, Buchman CA. Bilateral cochlear implantation: current concepts, indications, and results. Laryngoscope. 2009;119:2395–2401. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous