Effect of Microphone Location and Beamforming Technology on Speech Recognition in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients.
Journal
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology
ISSN: 2157-3107
Titre abrégé: J Am Acad Audiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9114646
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
3
3
2020
medline:
25
11
2021
entrez:
3
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Despite improvements in cochlear implant (CI) technology, pediatric CI recipients continue to have more difficulty understanding speech than their typically hearing peers in background noise. A variety of strategies have been evaluated to help mitigate this disparity, such as signal processing, remote microphone technology, and microphone placement. Previous studies regarding microphone placement used speech processors that are now dated, and most studies investigating the improvement of speech recognition in background noise included adult listeners only. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of microphone location and beamforming technology on speech understanding for pediatric CI recipients in noise. A prospective, repeated-measures, within-participant design was used to compare performance across listening conditions. A total of nine children (aged 6.6 to 15.3 years) with at least one Advanced Bionics CI were recruited for this study. The Basic English Lexicon Sentences and AzBio Sentences were presented at 0o azimuth at 65-dB SPL in +5 signal-to-noise ratio noise presented from seven speakers using the R-SPACE system (Advanced Bionics, Valencia, CA). Performance was compared across three omnidirectional microphone configurations (processor microphone, T-Mic 2, and processor + T-Mic 2) and two directional microphone configurations (UltraZoom and auto UltraZoom). The two youngest participants were not tested in the directional microphone configurations. No significant differences were found between the various omnidirectional microphone configurations. UltraZoom provided significant benefit over all omnidirectional microphone configurations (T-Mic 2, All omnidirectional microphone configurations yielded similar performance, suggesting that a child's listening performance in noise will not be compromised by choosing the microphone configuration best suited for the child. UltraZoom (adaptive beamformer) yielded higher performance than all omnidirectional microphones in moderate background noise for adolescents aged 9 to 15 years. The implications of these data suggest that for older children who are able to reliably use manual controls, UltraZoom will yield significantly higher performance in background noise when the target is in front of the listener.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite improvements in cochlear implant (CI) technology, pediatric CI recipients continue to have more difficulty understanding speech than their typically hearing peers in background noise. A variety of strategies have been evaluated to help mitigate this disparity, such as signal processing, remote microphone technology, and microphone placement. Previous studies regarding microphone placement used speech processors that are now dated, and most studies investigating the improvement of speech recognition in background noise included adult listeners only.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of microphone location and beamforming technology on speech understanding for pediatric CI recipients in noise.
RESEARCH DESIGN
A prospective, repeated-measures, within-participant design was used to compare performance across listening conditions.
STUDY SAMPLE
A total of nine children (aged 6.6 to 15.3 years) with at least one Advanced Bionics CI were recruited for this study.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The Basic English Lexicon Sentences and AzBio Sentences were presented at 0o azimuth at 65-dB SPL in +5 signal-to-noise ratio noise presented from seven speakers using the R-SPACE system (Advanced Bionics, Valencia, CA). Performance was compared across three omnidirectional microphone configurations (processor microphone, T-Mic 2, and processor + T-Mic 2) and two directional microphone configurations (UltraZoom and auto UltraZoom). The two youngest participants were not tested in the directional microphone configurations.
RESULTS
No significant differences were found between the various omnidirectional microphone configurations. UltraZoom provided significant benefit over all omnidirectional microphone configurations (T-Mic 2,
CONCLUSIONS
All omnidirectional microphone configurations yielded similar performance, suggesting that a child's listening performance in noise will not be compromised by choosing the microphone configuration best suited for the child. UltraZoom (adaptive beamformer) yielded higher performance than all omnidirectional microphones in moderate background noise for adolescents aged 9 to 15 years. The implications of these data suggest that for older children who are able to reliably use manual controls, UltraZoom will yield significantly higher performance in background noise when the target is in front of the listener.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32119817
doi: 10.3766/jaaa.19025
pmc: PMC7415548
mid: NIHMS1581185
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
506-512Subventions
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : P50 HD103537
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDCD NIH HHS
ID : R01 DC009404
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Audiology. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None declared.
Références
Otol Neurotol. 2016 Feb;37(2):e75-81
pubmed: 26756159
J Am Acad Audiol. 2015 Jan;26(1):51-8; quiz 109-10
pubmed: 25597460
Ear Hear. 2010 Feb;31(1):95-101
pubmed: 19773658
Ear Hear. 2007 Feb;28(1):62-72
pubmed: 17204899
Codas. 2014 Mar-Apr;26(2):155-8
pubmed: 24918509
J Am Acad Audiol. 2011 Feb;22(2):65-80
pubmed: 21463562
Trends Amplif. 2005;9(4):159-97
pubmed: 16424945
Trends Hear. 2018 Jan-Dec;22:2331216518771176
pubmed: 29716437
J Am Acad Audiol. 2000 Jan;11(1):23-35
pubmed: 10741354
J Am Acad Audiol. 2015 May;26(5):502-508
pubmed: 26055839
J Am Acad Audiol. 2020 Apr 27;:
pubmed: 32340055
Otol Neurotol. 2016 Feb;37(2):e50-5
pubmed: 26756155
Am J Audiol. 2015 Sep;24(3):440-50
pubmed: 26649548
J Acoust Soc Am. 1974 Dec;56(6):1848-61
pubmed: 4443484
J Acoust Soc Am. 1986 Feb;79(2):465-71
pubmed: 3950200
Ear Hear. 2012 Jan-Feb;33(1):112-7
pubmed: 21829134
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013 Jun;56(3):792-804
pubmed: 23275396
Ear Hear. 2012 Jul-Aug;33(4):e13-23
pubmed: 22555182
Ear Hear. 2010 Dec;31(6):761-8
pubmed: 20562623
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Sep;274(9):3335-3342
pubmed: 28664331
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 May;273(5):1107-14
pubmed: 25983309
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 22;9(4):e95542
pubmed: 24755864
J Am Acad Audiol. 2010 Jul-Aug;21(7):441-51; quiz 487-8
pubmed: 20807480
Cochlear Implants Int. 2015 Mar;16(2):69-76
pubmed: 24993633
Ear Hear. 2011 Jul-Aug;32(4):468-84
pubmed: 21412155