Limits...
Hearing performance benefits of a programmable power baha® sound processor with a directional microphone for patients with a mixed hearing loss.

Flynn MC, Hedin A, Halvarsson G, Good T, Sadeghi A - Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol (2012)

Bottom Line: For any new technology, it is important to evaluate the degree of benefit under different listening situations.The test sound processor had significantly improved high frequency audibility (3,000-8,000 Hz).The test sound processor demonstrated significant improvements in the most challenging listening situation (speech recognition in noise).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Research and Applications, Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions, Gothenburg, Sweden.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: New signal processing technologies have recently become available for Baha® sound processors. These technologies have led to an increase in power and to the implementation of directional microphones. For any new technology, it is important to evaluate the degree of benefit under different listening situations.

Methods: Twenty wearers of the Baha osseointegrated hearing system participated in the investigation. The control sound processor was the Baha Intenso and the test sound processor was the Cochlear™ Baha® BP110power. Performance was evaluated in terms of free-field audibility with narrow band noise stimuli. Speech recognition of monosyllabic phonetically balanced (PB) words in quiet was performed at three intensity settings (50, 65, and 80 dB sound pressure level [SPL]) with materials presented at 0 degrees azimuth. Speech recognition of sentences in noise using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) in an adaptive framework was performed with speech from 0 degrees and noise held constant at 65 dB SPL from 180 degrees. Testing was performed in both the omni and directional microphone settings. Loudness growth was assessed in randomly presented 10 dB steps between 30 and 90 dB SPL to narrow band noise stimuli at 500 Hz and 3,000 Hz.

Results: The test sound processor had significantly improved high frequency audibility (3,000-8,000 Hz). Speech recognition of PB words in quiet at three different intensity levels (50, 65, and 80 dB SPL) indicated a significant difference in terms of level (P<0.0001) but not for sound processor type (P>0.05). Speech recognition of sentences in noise demonstrated a 2.5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) improvement in performance for the test sound processor. The directional microphone provided an additional 2.3 dB SNR improvement in speech recognition (P<0.0001). Loudness growth functions demonstrated similar performance, indicating that both sound processors had sufficient headroom and amplification for the required hearing loss.

Conclusion: The test sound processor demonstrated significant improvements in the most challenging listening situation (speech recognition in noise). The implementation of a directional microphone demonstrated a further potential improvement in hearing performance. Both the control and test sound processors demonstrated good performance in terms of audibility, word recognition in quiet and loudness growth.

No MeSH data available.


Comparison of speech recognition in noise performance of the control and test sound processors demonstrating a 2.5 dB mean improvement in signal-to-noise ratio (SRN; P<0.0001). Comparison of the omni-directional and directional microphone in the test sound processor showed a further 2.3 dB advantage in speech recognition in noise (P<0.0001). Error bars indicate one standard error. Better performance is indicated by 50% performance in a poorer SNR.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3369989&req=5

Figure 5: Comparison of speech recognition in noise performance of the control and test sound processors demonstrating a 2.5 dB mean improvement in signal-to-noise ratio (SRN; P<0.0001). Comparison of the omni-directional and directional microphone in the test sound processor showed a further 2.3 dB advantage in speech recognition in noise (P<0.0001). Error bars indicate one standard error. Better performance is indicated by 50% performance in a poorer SNR.

Mentions: The test sound processor recorded on average a 2.5 dB improvement (and microphone mode fixed to omni-directional) in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) improvement (Fig. 5). To determine statistical significance, an ANOVA was performed (F[1,19]=26.25, P<0.0001) and indicated that performance was significantly better with the test sound processor than with the control sound processor. Importantly, each subject in the study had better speech recognition scores with the test than control sound processor. Performance comparison of the omni and directional microphone modes for the test sound processor indicated a significant benefit (F[1,19]=60.49, P<0.0001) of 2.3 dB (Fig. 5). Combined, in the most difficult listening situations, this provides an average improvement of 4.8 dB SNR over the control sound processor.


Hearing performance benefits of a programmable power baha® sound processor with a directional microphone for patients with a mixed hearing loss.

Flynn MC, Hedin A, Halvarsson G, Good T, Sadeghi A - Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol (2012)

Comparison of speech recognition in noise performance of the control and test sound processors demonstrating a 2.5 dB mean improvement in signal-to-noise ratio (SRN; P<0.0001). Comparison of the omni-directional and directional microphone in the test sound processor showed a further 2.3 dB advantage in speech recognition in noise (P<0.0001). Error bars indicate one standard error. Better performance is indicated by 50% performance in a poorer SNR.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3369989&req=5

Figure 5: Comparison of speech recognition in noise performance of the control and test sound processors demonstrating a 2.5 dB mean improvement in signal-to-noise ratio (SRN; P<0.0001). Comparison of the omni-directional and directional microphone in the test sound processor showed a further 2.3 dB advantage in speech recognition in noise (P<0.0001). Error bars indicate one standard error. Better performance is indicated by 50% performance in a poorer SNR.
Mentions: The test sound processor recorded on average a 2.5 dB improvement (and microphone mode fixed to omni-directional) in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) improvement (Fig. 5). To determine statistical significance, an ANOVA was performed (F[1,19]=26.25, P<0.0001) and indicated that performance was significantly better with the test sound processor than with the control sound processor. Importantly, each subject in the study had better speech recognition scores with the test than control sound processor. Performance comparison of the omni and directional microphone modes for the test sound processor indicated a significant benefit (F[1,19]=60.49, P<0.0001) of 2.3 dB (Fig. 5). Combined, in the most difficult listening situations, this provides an average improvement of 4.8 dB SNR over the control sound processor.

Bottom Line: For any new technology, it is important to evaluate the degree of benefit under different listening situations.The test sound processor had significantly improved high frequency audibility (3,000-8,000 Hz).The test sound processor demonstrated significant improvements in the most challenging listening situation (speech recognition in noise).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Research and Applications, Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions, Gothenburg, Sweden.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: New signal processing technologies have recently become available for Baha® sound processors. These technologies have led to an increase in power and to the implementation of directional microphones. For any new technology, it is important to evaluate the degree of benefit under different listening situations.

Methods: Twenty wearers of the Baha osseointegrated hearing system participated in the investigation. The control sound processor was the Baha Intenso and the test sound processor was the Cochlear™ Baha® BP110power. Performance was evaluated in terms of free-field audibility with narrow band noise stimuli. Speech recognition of monosyllabic phonetically balanced (PB) words in quiet was performed at three intensity settings (50, 65, and 80 dB sound pressure level [SPL]) with materials presented at 0 degrees azimuth. Speech recognition of sentences in noise using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) in an adaptive framework was performed with speech from 0 degrees and noise held constant at 65 dB SPL from 180 degrees. Testing was performed in both the omni and directional microphone settings. Loudness growth was assessed in randomly presented 10 dB steps between 30 and 90 dB SPL to narrow band noise stimuli at 500 Hz and 3,000 Hz.

Results: The test sound processor had significantly improved high frequency audibility (3,000-8,000 Hz). Speech recognition of PB words in quiet at three different intensity levels (50, 65, and 80 dB SPL) indicated a significant difference in terms of level (P<0.0001) but not for sound processor type (P>0.05). Speech recognition of sentences in noise demonstrated a 2.5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) improvement in performance for the test sound processor. The directional microphone provided an additional 2.3 dB SNR improvement in speech recognition (P<0.0001). Loudness growth functions demonstrated similar performance, indicating that both sound processors had sufficient headroom and amplification for the required hearing loss.

Conclusion: The test sound processor demonstrated significant improvements in the most challenging listening situation (speech recognition in noise). The implementation of a directional microphone demonstrated a further potential improvement in hearing performance. Both the control and test sound processors demonstrated good performance in terms of audibility, word recognition in quiet and loudness growth.

No MeSH data available.