Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2022; 33(03): 142-148
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740517
Research Article

Remote Microphone Systems for Cochlear Implant Recipients in Small Group Settings

Sharon Miller
1   Department of Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas
,
Jace Wolfe
2   Hearts for Hearing Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Sara Neumann
2   Hearts for Hearing Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Erin C. Schafer
1   Department of Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas
,
Jason Galster
3   Advanced Bionics LLC, Valencia, California
,
Smita Agrawal
3   Advanced Bionics LLC, Valencia, California
› Author Affiliations Funding This research was partially funded by a grant from Advanced Bionics, LLC. These data have not been presented in any other journal or at any professional meeting.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose Cochlear implant (CI) recipients often experience speech recognition difficulty in noise in small group settings with multiple talkers. In traditional remote microphones systems, one talker wears a remote microphone that wirelessly delivers speech to the CI processor. This system will not transmit signals from multiple talkers in a small group. However, remote microphone systems with multiple microphones allowing for adaptive beamforming may be beneficial for small group situations with multiple talkers. Specifically, a remote microphone with an adaptive multiple-microphone beamformer may be placed in the center of the small group, and the beam (i.e., polar lobe) may be automatically steered toward the direction associated with the most favorable speech-to-noise ratio. The signal from the remote microphone can then be wirelessly delivered to the CI sound processor. Alternately, each of the talkers in a small group may use a remote microphone that is part of a multi-talker network that wirelessly delivers the remote microphone signal to the CI sound processor. The purpose of this study was to compare the potential benefit of an adaptive multiple-microphone beamformer remote microphone system and a multi-talker network remote microphone system.

Method Twenty recipients, ages 12 to 84 years, with Advanced Bionics CIs completed sentence-recognition-in-noise tasks while seated at a desk surrounded by three loudspeakers at 0, 90, and 270 degrees. These speakers randomly presented the target speech while competing noise was presented from four loudspeakers located in the corners of the room. Testing was completed in three conditions: 1) CI alone, 2) Remote microphone system with an adaptive multiple-microphone beamformer, and 3) and a multi-talker network remote microphone system each with five different signal levels (15 total conditions).

Results Significant differences were found across all signal levels and technology conditions. Relative to the CI alone, sentence recognition improvements ranged from 14–23 percentage points with the adaptive multiple-microphone beamformer and 27–47 percentage points with the multi-talker network with superior performance for the latter remote microphone system.

Conclusions Both remote microphone systems significantly improved speech recognition in noise of CI recipients when listening in small group settings, but the multi-talker network provided superior performance.

Keywords

cochlear implants - hearing assistive technology - speech recognition - remote microphone system - adaptive multiple-microphone beamformer - multi-talker network - small group

Disclosure

Jason Galster and Smita Agrawal are employees of Advanced Bionics, LLC, and Jace Wolfe is a member of the Phonak Pediatric Advisory Board and a consultant with Advanced Bionics.


Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.




Publication History

Received: 16 April 2021

Accepted: 11 October 2021

Article published online:
10 October 2022

© 2022. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Schafer EC, Pogue J, Milrany T. List equivalency of the AzBio sentence test in noise for listeners with normal-hearing sensitivity or cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23 (07) 501-509
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Wolfe J, Morais M, Neumann S. et al. Evaluation of speech recognition with personal FM and classroom audio distribution systems. J Educ Audiol 2013a 19: 65-79
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Wolfe J, Morais M, Schafer E. et al. Evaluation of speech recognition of cochlear implant recipients using a personal digital adaptive radio frequency system. J Am Acad Audiol 2013b 24 (08) 714-724
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Wolfe J, Schafer EC, Heldner B, Mülder H, Ward E, Vincent B. Evaluation of speech recognition in noise with cochlear implants and dynamic FM. J Am Acad Audiol 2009; 20 (07) 409-421
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hawkins DB. Comparisons of speech recognition in noise by mildly-to-moderately hearing-impaired children using hearing aids and FM systems. J Speech Hear Disord 1984; 49 (04) 409-418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Johnstone PM, Mills KET, Humphrey E. et al. Using Microphone Technology to Improve Speech Perception in Noise in Children with Cochlear Implants. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (09) 814-825 DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17035.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ricketts TA. Directional hearing AIDS. Trends Amplif 2001; 5 (04) 139-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cruckley J, Scollie S, Parsa V. An exploration of nonquiet listening at school. J Educ Audiol 2011; 17: 23-35
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Pearsons KS, Bennett RL, Fidell S. (1977) Speech levels in various noise environments (Report No. EPA-600/1–77–025)/. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Wolfe J, Morais M, Schafer E. Improving hearing performance for cochlear implant recipients with use of a digital, wireless, remote-microphone, audio-streaming accessory. J Am Acad Audiol 2015a 26 (06) 532-539
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Wolfe J, Morais M, Schafer E, Agrawal S, Koch D. Evaluation of speech recognition of cochlear implant recipients using adaptive, digital remote microphone technology and a speech enhancement sound processing algorithm. J Am Acad Audiol 2015b 26 (05) 502-508
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Feilner M, Rich S, Jones C. Scientific background and implementation of pediatric optimized automatic functions. Phonak Insight 2016; x: 1-5
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Wolfe J, Duke M, Schafer E, Jones C, Rakita L, Battles J. Evaluation of a remote microphone system with a tri-microphone beamformer. J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31 (01) 50-60
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 De Ceulaer G, Bestel J, Mülder HE, Goldbeck F, de Varebeke SP, Govaerts PJ. Speech understanding in noise with the Roger Pen, Naida CI Q70 processor, and integrated Roger 17 receiver in a multi-talker network. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 273 (05) 1107-1114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Peterson GE, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962; 27: 62-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Knecht HA, Nelson PB, Whitelaw GM, Feth LL. Background noise levels and reverberation times in unoccupied classrooms: predictions and measurements. Am J Audiol 2002; 11 (02) 65-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Schafer EC, Thibodeau LM. Speech Recognition in noise in children with cochlear implants while listening in bilateral, bimodal, and FM-system arrangements. Am J Audiol 2006; 15 (02) 114-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM. et al. Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (01) 112-117
    Google Scholar