Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Oct 21:18:1475122.
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1475122. eCollection 2024.

Improving speech intelligibility in noise and spatial perception: the critical role of hearing aid microphone position

Eyyup Kara  1 , Nurşah Özal  2 , Burcu Deniz  3 , Talha Çögen  1 , Rışvan Deniz  4 , Kübra Aydın  2 , Cenk Caba  5 , Begüm Bahar Yılmaz  6
Affiliations

Improving speech intelligibility in noise and spatial perception: the critical role of hearing aid microphone position

Eyyup Kara et al. Front Neurosci. .

Abstract

Introduction: Hearing aid (HA) manufacturers have introduced behind-the-ear (BTE) models where the microphone is positioned in the ear canal, which could impact auditory performance by distorting the pinna's acoustic cues. This study aimed to compare two different BTE HAs with varying microphone positions: the receiver in the ear (RITE) and the transducer in the ear (TIE).

Methods: The study involved 10 participants who had never used HAs before. They used both RITE and TIE HAs bilaterally for 3 weeks. Auditory performance was assessed through free field hearing assessments (hearing thresholds, speech recognition threshold, and speech discrimination score), the Turkish Matrix Sentence Test (TURMatrix), a sound localization test, and the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Living (SADL) questionnaire.

Results: There was no significant difference between TIE and RITE in the free field hearing assessments. However, TIE outperformed RITE in non-adaptive TURMatrix scores in quiet, adaptive TURMatrix scores in noise, and sound localization accuracy at various angles. SADL sub-scores (Positive Effect, Service and Cost, and Personal Image) and overall satisfaction scores were significantly better for TIE.

Discussion: The microphone position in HAs can influence auditory performance. This study demonstrated that TIE provided better speech intelligibility, localization accuracy, and user satisfaction compared to RITE.

Keywords: auditory localization; hearing aid; hearing aid satisfaction; microphone location; speech intelligibility.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CC is employed by Earnet Co. with scientific roles only and without any marketing or sales activities. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) Receiver-in-the-Ear (RITE) hearing aid: the microphone is located on the shell, while the receiver is positioned at the ear canal level. (B) Transducer-in-the-Ear (TIE) hearing aid: both the microphone and the receiver are located at the ear canal level.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Non-adaptive (quiet) and adaptive (noise) Turkish Matrix Sentence Test (TURMatrix) results, and localization accuracy for Receiver-in-the-Ear (RITE), Transducer-in-the-Ear (TIE), and without device (WD) conditions.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Correct localization percentages by azimuth for each condition: Without Device (WD), Receiver-in-the-Ear (RITE), and Transducer-in-the-Ear (TIE).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Living (SADL) results for Receiver-in-the-Ear (RITE) and Transducer-in-the-Ear (TIE) hearing aids.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Aazh H., Moore B. C. (2007). The value of routine real ear measurement of the gain of digital hearing aids. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 18, 653–664. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.18.8.3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arlinger S. (2003). Negative consequences of uncorrected hearing loss-a review. Int. J. Audiol. 42 Suppl 2, 2S17–12S20. doi: 10.3109/14992020309074639, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baumfield A., Dillon H. (2001). Factors affecting the use and perceived benefit of ITE and BTE hearing aids. Br. J. Audiol. 35, 247–258. doi: 10.1080/00305364.2001.11745243 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Best V., Kalluri S., McLachlan S., Valentine S., Edwards B., Carlile S. (2010). A comparison of CIC and BTE hearing aids for three-dimensional localization of speech. Int. J. Audiol. 49, 723–732. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2010.484827, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boyd A. W., Whitmer W. M., Soraghan J. J., Akeroyd M. A. (2012). Auditory externalization in hearing-impaired listeners: the effect of pinna cues and number of talkers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131:EL268-EL274. doi: 10.1121/1.3687015, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources