The Effect of Binaural Beamforming Technology on Speech Intelligibility in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Recipients

Listening Effort Measured With Pupillometry in Cochlear Implant Users Depends on Sound Level, But Not on the Signal to Noise Ratio When Using the Matrix Test

OBJECTIVES

We investigated whether listening effort is dependent on task difficulty for cochlear implant (CI) users when using the Matrix speech-in-noise test. To this end, we measured peak pupil dilation (PPD) at a wide range of signal to noise ratios (SNR) by systematically changing the noise level at a constant speech level, and vice versa.

DESIGN

A group of mostly elderly CI users performed the Dutch/Flemish Matrix test in quiet and in multitalker babble at different SNRs. SNRs were set relative to the speech-recognition threshold (SRT), namely at SRT, and 5 and 10 dB above SRT (0 dB, +5 dB, and +10 dB re SRT). The latter 2 conditions were obtained by either varying speech level (at a fixed noise level of 60 dBA) or by varying noise level (with a fixed speech level). We compared these PPDs with those of a group of typical hearing (TH) listeners. In addition, listening effort was assessed with subjective ratings on a Likert scale.

RESULTS

PPD for the CI group did not significantly depend on SNR, whereas SNR significantly affected PPDs for TH listeners. Subjective effort ratings depended significantly on SNR for both groups. For CI users, PPDs were significantly larger, and effort was rated higher when speech was varied, and noise was fixed for CI users. By contrast, for TH listeners effort ratings were significantly higher and performance scores lower when noise was varied, and speech was fixed.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of a significant effect of varying SNR on PPD suggests that the Matrix test may not be a feasible speech test for measuring listening effort with pupillometric measures for CI users. A rating test appeared more promising in this population, corroborating earlier reports that subjective measures may reflect different dimensions of listening effort than pupil dilation. Establishing the SNR by varying speech or noise level can have subtle, but significant effects on measures of listening effort, and these effects can differ between TH listeners and CI users.

Integrated bimodal fitting and binaural streaming technology outcomes for unilateral cochlear implant users

OBJECTIVE

Adults typically receive only one cochlear implant (CI) due to cost constraints, with a contralateral hearing aid recommended when there is aidable hearing. Standard hearing aids differ from a CI in terms of processing strategy and function as a separate entity, requiring the user to integrate the disparate signals. Integrated bimodal technology has recently been introduced to address this challenge. The aim of the study was to investigate the performance of unilateral CI users with and without an integrated bimodal fitting and determine whether binaural streaming technology offers additional benefit.

STUDY SAMPLE

Twenty-six CI users using integrated bimodal technology.

DESIGN

Repeated measures where outcomes and user experience were assessed using a functional test battery more representative of real life listening (speech perception in noise tests, localisation test, tracking test) and the speech, spatial and qualities-of-hearing scale (SSQ).

RESULTS

Bimodal outcomes were significantly better than for CI alone. Speech perception in noise improvements ranged from 1.4 dB to 3.5 dB depending on the location of speech and noise. The localisation and tracking tests, and the SSQ also showed significant improvements. Binaural streaming offered additional improvement (1.2 dB to 6.1 dB on the different speech tests).

CONCLUSIONS

Integrated bimodal and binaural streaming technology improved the performance of unilateral CI users.

The Benefit of Bimodal Hearing and Beamforming for Cochlear Implant Users

INTRODUCTION

Cochlear implantation is the standard treatment for severe to profound hearing loss. While cochlear implant (CI) users can communicate effectively in quiet environments, speech understanding in noise remains challenging. Bimodal hearing, combining a CI in one ear and a hearing aid (HA) in the other, has shown advantages over unilateral electrical hearing, especially for speech understanding in noisy conditions. Beamforming is a technique used to improve speech understanding in noise by detecting sound direction and enhancing frontal (speech) sounds while attenuating background noise. One specific beamformer, Stereozoom, combines signals from microphones in both ears to create a focused beam toward the front resulting in a binaural beamformer (BB), in order to improve speech intelligibility in noise for bilateral and bimodal CI users.

METHODS

A prospective crossover study involving 17 bimodal CI users was conducted, and participants were tested with various device configurations (CI, HA, CI + HA) with and without BB. Speech recognition testing with the Dutch/Flemish matrix test was performed in a sound-attenuated booth with diffuse noise to simulate realistic listening conditions.

RESULTS

The results showed a statistically significant benefit of bimodal hearing over the CI configuration and showed a statistical significant benefit of BB for the CI and CI + HA configuration. The benefit of BB in the HA configuration was not statistically significant probably due to the higher variance. The benefit of BB in the three configurations did not differ statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, bimodal hearing offers advantages for speech understanding in noise for CI users. BB provides a benefit in various device configurations, leading to improved speech intelligibility when speech comes from the front in challenging listening environments.

Modelling speech reception thresholds and their improvements due to spatial noise reduction algorithms in bimodal cochlear implant users

•

This paper compares two modelling approaches to predict the speech recognition ability of bimodal CI users and the benefit of using beamformers.

•

The modelling approaches vary in computational complexity and fitting requirements.

•

A complex cafeteria spatial scenario with three localized single noise source scenario and a diffuse multi-talker babble noise is used.

•

The automatic speech recognizer is more accurate across the different spatial scenarios and noise types and requires less fitting compared to the statistical modelling approach.

Spatial noise reduction algorithms (“beamformers”) can considerably improve speech reception thresholds (SRTs) for bimodal cochlear implant (CI) users. The goal of this study was to model SRTs and SRT-benefit due to beamformers for bimodal CI users. Two existing model approaches varying in computational complexity and binaural processing assumption were compared: (i) the framework of auditory discrimination experiments (FADE) and (ii) the binaural speech intelligibility model (BSIM), both with CI and aided hearing-impaired front-ends. The exact same acoustic scenarios, and open-access beamformers as in the comparison clinical study Zedan et al. (2021) were used to quantify goodness of prediction. FADE was capable of modeling SRTs ab-initio, i.e., no calibration of the model was necessary to achieve high correlations and low root-mean square errors (RMSE) to both, measured SRTs (r = 0.85, RMSE = 2.8 dB) and to measured SRT-benefits (r = 0.96). BSIM achieved somewhat poorer predictions to both, measured SRTs (r = 0.78, RMSE = 6.7 dB) and to measured SRT-benefits (r = 0.91) and needs to be calibrated for matching average SRTs in one condition. Greatest deviations in predictions of BSIM were observed in diffuse multi-talker babble noise, which were not found with FADE. SRT-benefit predictions of both models were similar to instrumental signal-to-noise ratio (iSNR) improvements due to the beamformers. This indicates that FADE is preferrable for modeling absolute SRTs. However, for prediction of SRT-benefit due to spatial noise reduction algorithms in bimodal CI users, the average iSNR is a much simpler approach with similar performance.

Beamforming and Single-Microphone Noise Reduction: Effects on Signal-to-Noise Ratio and Speech Recognition of Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users

We have investigated the effectiveness of three noise-reduction algorithms, namely an adaptive monaural beamformer (MB), a fixed binaural beamformer (BB), and a single-microphone stationary-noise reduction algorithm (SNRA) by assessing the speech reception threshold (SRT) in a group of 15 bimodal cochlear implant users. Speech was presented frontally towards the listener and background noise was established as a homogeneous field of long-term speech-spectrum-shaped (LTSS) noise or 8-talker babble. We pursued four research questions, namely: whether the benefits of beamforming on the SRT differ between LTSS noise and 8-talker babble; whether BB is more effective than MB; whether SNRA improves the SRT in LTSS noise; and whether the SRT benefits of MB and BB are comparable to their improvement of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The results showed that MB and BB significantly improved SRTs by an average of 2.6 dB and 2.9 dB, respectively. These benefits did not statistically differ between noise types or between the two beamformers. By contrast, physical SNR improvements obtained with a manikin revealed substantially greater benefits of BB (6.6 dB) than MB (3.3 dB). SNRA did not significantly affect SRTs per se in omnidirectional microphone settings, nor in combination with MB and BB. We conclude that in the group of bimodal listeners tested, BB had no additional benefits on speech recognition over MB in homogeneous noise, despite the finding that BB had a substantial larger benefit on the SNR than MB. SNRA did not improve speech recognition.

Speech Intelligibility and Spatial Release From Masking Improvements Using Spatial Noise Reduction Algorithms in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users

This study investigated the speech intelligibility benefit of using two different spatial noise reduction algorithms in cochlear implant (CI) users who use a hearing aid (HA) on the contralateral side (bimodal CI users). The study controlled for head movements by using head-related impulse responses to simulate a realistic cafeteria scenario and controlled for HA and CI manufacturer differences by using the master hearing aid platform (MHA) to apply both hearing loss compensation and the noise reduction algorithms (beamformers). Ten bimodal CI users with moderate to severe hearing loss contralateral to their CI participated in the study, and data from nine listeners were included in the data analysis. The beamformers evaluated were the adaptive differential microphones (ADM) implemented independently on each side of the listener and the (binaurally implemented) minimum variance distortionless response (MVDR). For frontal speech and stationary noise from either left or right, an improvement (reduction) of the speech reception threshold of 5.4 dB and 5.5 dB was observed using the ADM, and 6.4 dB and 7.0 dB using the MVDR, respectively. As expected, no improvement was observed for either algorithm for colocated speech and noise. In a 20-talker babble noise scenario, the benefit observed was 3.5 dB for ADM and 7.5 dB for MVDR. The binaural MVDR algorithm outperformed the bilaterally applied monaural ADM. These results encourage the use of beamformer algorithms such as the ADM and MVDR by bimodal CI users in everyday life scenarios.

Effect of Microphone Configuration and Sound Source Location on Speech Recognition for Adult Cochlear Implant Users with Current-Generation Sound Processors

BACKGROUND

Microphone location has been shown to influence speech recognition with a microphone placed at the entrance to the ear canal yielding higher levels of speech recognition than top-of-the-pinna placement. Although this work is currently influencing cochlear implant programming practices, prior studies were completed with previous-generation microphone and sound processor technology. Consequently, the applicability of prior studies to current clinical practice is unclear.

PURPOSE

To investigate how microphone location (e.g., at the entrance to the ear canal, at the top of the pinna), speech-source location, and configuration (e.g., omnidirectional, directional) influence speech recognition for adult CI recipients with the latest in sound processor technology.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Single-center prospective study using a within-subjects, repeated-measures design.

STUDY SAMPLE

Eleven experienced adult Advanced Bionics cochlear implant recipients (five bilateral, six bimodal) using a Naída CI Q90 sound processor were recruited for this study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Sentences were presented from a single loudspeaker at 65 dBA for source azimuths of 0°, 90°, or 270° with semidiffuse noise originating from the remaining loudspeakers in the R-SPACE array. Individualized signal-to-noise ratios were determined to obtain 50% correct in the unilateral cochlear implant condition with the signal at 0°. Performance was compared across the following microphone sources: T-Mic 2, integrated processor microphone (formerly behind-the-ear mic), processor microphone + T-Mic 2, and two types of beamforming: monaural, adaptive beamforming (UltraZoom) and binaural beamforming (StereoZoom). Repeated-measures analyses were completed for both speech recognition and microphone output for each microphone location and configuration as well as sound source location. A two-way analysis of variance using mic and azimuth as the independent variables and output for pink noise as the dependent variable was used to characterize the acoustic output characteristics of each microphone source.

RESULTS

No significant differences in speech recognition across omnidirectional mic location at any source azimuth or listening condition were observed. Secondary findings were (1) omnidirectional microphone configurations afforded significantly higher speech recognition for conditions in which speech was directed to ± 90° (when compared with directional microphone configurations), (2) omnidirectional microphone output was significantly greater when the signal was presented off-axis, and (3) processor microphone output was significantly greater than T-Mic 2 when the sound originated from 0°, which contributed to better aided detection at 2 and 6 kHz with the processor microphone in this group.

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike previous-generation microphones, we found no statistically significant effect of microphone location on speech recognition in noise from any source azimuth. Directional microphones significantly improved speech recognition in the most difficult listening environments.