Evaluation of the Benefit for Cochlear Implantees of Two Assistive Directional Microphone Systems in an Artificial Diffuse Noise Situation

OBJECTIVE:People with cochlear implants have severe problems with speech understanding in noisy surroundings. This study evaluates and quantifies the effect of two assistive directional microphone systems compared to the standard headpiece microphone on speech perception in quiet surroundings and in...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ear and hearing 2007-02, Vol.28 (1), p.99-110
Hauptverfasser: van der Beek, F B, Soede, W, Frijns, J H. M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 110
container_issue 1
container_start_page 99
container_title Ear and hearing
container_volume 28
creator van der Beek, F B
Soede, W
Frijns, J H. M
description OBJECTIVE:People with cochlear implants have severe problems with speech understanding in noisy surroundings. This study evaluates and quantifies the effect of two assistive directional microphone systems compared to the standard headpiece microphone on speech perception in quiet surroundings and in background noise, in a laboratory setting developed to reflect a situation whereby the listener is disturbed by a noise with a mainly diffuse character due to many sources in a reverberant room. DESIGN:Thirteen postlingually deafened patients, implanted in the Leiden University Medical Centre with the Clarion CII device, participated in the study. An experimental set-up with 8 uncorrelated steady-state noise sources was used to test speech perception on monosyllabic words. Each subject was tested with a standard headpiece microphone, and the two assistive directional microphones, TX3 Handymic by Phonak and the Linkit array microphone by Etymotic Research. Testing was done in quiet at a level of 65 dB SPL and with decreasing signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) down to –15 dB. RESULTS:Using the assistive directional microphones, speech recognition in background noise improved substantially and was not affected in quiet. At an SNR of 0 dB, the average CVC scores improved from 45% for the headpiece microphone to 67% and 62% for the TX3 Handymic and the Linkit respectively. Compared to the headpiece, the Speech Reception Threshold (SRT) improved by 8.2 dB SNR and 5.9 dB SNR for the TX3 Handymic and the Linkit respectively. The gain in SRT for TX3 Handymic and Linkit was neither correlated to the SRT score with headpiece nor the duration of CI-use. CONCLUSION:The speech recognition test in background noise showed a clear benefit from the assistive directional microphones for cochlear implantees compared to the standard microphone. In a noisy environment, the significant benefit from these assistive device microphones may allow understanding of speech with greater ease.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31802d0a55
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmed_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1097_AUD_0b013e31802d0a55</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>17204902</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3809-b432c2de0ff45f2e52cc931c45cf311bf1828276a3424ce342fb6c21e8817fea3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkU1PIzEMhqMVaCmw_2CFcuE44HzM17G0wCLBcgDOo0zqaALppEpSKv4Cv3pTtVKl9cGWrOe1rdeE_GZwxaCtr6dv8yvogQkUrAG-AFWWP8iElaIpZFXVR2QCrK0K4MBPyGmM7wCMt5X8SU5YzUG2wCfk-_ZTubVK1o_UG5oGpDc4orGJGh_ozOvBoQr0YblyakyIcYu9bjydxmhjsp9I5zag3k5Qjj5ZHfxq8CPSl6-YcBmpHaka6TQka6y2mZlbY9YR6V9vc36xabf_nBwb5SL-2tcz8nZ3-zr7Uzw-3z_Mpo-FFg20RS8F13yBYIwsDceSa90KpmWpjWCsN6zhDa8rJSSXGnM2faU5w6ZhtUElzojczc2XxhjQdKtglyp8dQy6rbVdtrb739osu9jJVut-iYuDaO9lBi73gIpaORPUqG08cI0s67YqD_s33iUM8cOtNxi6AZVLQwc5hJRVwQHq_DuAYttqxT8Qn5RD</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of the Benefit for Cochlear Implantees of Two Assistive Directional Microphone Systems in an Artificial Diffuse Noise Situation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>van der Beek, F B ; Soede, W ; Frijns, J H. M</creator><creatorcontrib>van der Beek, F B ; Soede, W ; Frijns, J H. M</creatorcontrib><description>OBJECTIVE:People with cochlear implants have severe problems with speech understanding in noisy surroundings. This study evaluates and quantifies the effect of two assistive directional microphone systems compared to the standard headpiece microphone on speech perception in quiet surroundings and in background noise, in a laboratory setting developed to reflect a situation whereby the listener is disturbed by a noise with a mainly diffuse character due to many sources in a reverberant room. DESIGN:Thirteen postlingually deafened patients, implanted in the Leiden University Medical Centre with the Clarion CII device, participated in the study. An experimental set-up with 8 uncorrelated steady-state noise sources was used to test speech perception on monosyllabic words. Each subject was tested with a standard headpiece microphone, and the two assistive directional microphones, TX3 Handymic by Phonak and the Linkit array microphone by Etymotic Research. Testing was done in quiet at a level of 65 dB SPL and with decreasing signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) down to –15 dB. RESULTS:Using the assistive directional microphones, speech recognition in background noise improved substantially and was not affected in quiet. At an SNR of 0 dB, the average CVC scores improved from 45% for the headpiece microphone to 67% and 62% for the TX3 Handymic and the Linkit respectively. Compared to the headpiece, the Speech Reception Threshold (SRT) improved by 8.2 dB SNR and 5.9 dB SNR for the TX3 Handymic and the Linkit respectively. The gain in SRT for TX3 Handymic and Linkit was neither correlated to the SRT score with headpiece nor the duration of CI-use. CONCLUSION:The speech recognition test in background noise showed a clear benefit from the assistive directional microphones for cochlear implantees compared to the standard microphone. In a noisy environment, the significant benefit from these assistive device microphones may allow understanding of speech with greater ease.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0196-0202</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-4667</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31802d0a55</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17204902</identifier><identifier>CODEN: EAHEDS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Amplifiers, Electronic - standards ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cochlear Implants - standards ; Deafness - physiopathology ; Deafness - surgery ; Equipment Design ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Noise ; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology ; Speech Perception ; Speech Reception Threshold Test</subject><ispartof>Ear and hearing, 2007-02, Vol.28 (1), p.99-110</ispartof><rights>2007 Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc.</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3809-b432c2de0ff45f2e52cc931c45cf311bf1828276a3424ce342fb6c21e8817fea3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3809-b432c2de0ff45f2e52cc931c45cf311bf1828276a3424ce342fb6c21e8817fea3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=18457965$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17204902$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>van der Beek, F B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soede, W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frijns, J H. M</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of the Benefit for Cochlear Implantees of Two Assistive Directional Microphone Systems in an Artificial Diffuse Noise Situation</title><title>Ear and hearing</title><addtitle>Ear Hear</addtitle><description>OBJECTIVE:People with cochlear implants have severe problems with speech understanding in noisy surroundings. This study evaluates and quantifies the effect of two assistive directional microphone systems compared to the standard headpiece microphone on speech perception in quiet surroundings and in background noise, in a laboratory setting developed to reflect a situation whereby the listener is disturbed by a noise with a mainly diffuse character due to many sources in a reverberant room. DESIGN:Thirteen postlingually deafened patients, implanted in the Leiden University Medical Centre with the Clarion CII device, participated in the study. An experimental set-up with 8 uncorrelated steady-state noise sources was used to test speech perception on monosyllabic words. Each subject was tested with a standard headpiece microphone, and the two assistive directional microphones, TX3 Handymic by Phonak and the Linkit array microphone by Etymotic Research. Testing was done in quiet at a level of 65 dB SPL and with decreasing signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) down to –15 dB. RESULTS:Using the assistive directional microphones, speech recognition in background noise improved substantially and was not affected in quiet. At an SNR of 0 dB, the average CVC scores improved from 45% for the headpiece microphone to 67% and 62% for the TX3 Handymic and the Linkit respectively. Compared to the headpiece, the Speech Reception Threshold (SRT) improved by 8.2 dB SNR and 5.9 dB SNR for the TX3 Handymic and the Linkit respectively. The gain in SRT for TX3 Handymic and Linkit was neither correlated to the SRT score with headpiece nor the duration of CI-use. CONCLUSION:The speech recognition test in background noise showed a clear benefit from the assistive directional microphones for cochlear implantees compared to the standard microphone. In a noisy environment, the significant benefit from these assistive device microphones may allow understanding of speech with greater ease.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Amplifiers, Electronic - standards</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cochlear Implants - standards</subject><subject>Deafness - physiopathology</subject><subject>Deafness - surgery</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Noise</subject><subject>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</subject><subject>Speech Perception</subject><subject>Speech Reception Threshold Test</subject><issn>0196-0202</issn><issn>1538-4667</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkU1PIzEMhqMVaCmw_2CFcuE44HzM17G0wCLBcgDOo0zqaALppEpSKv4Cv3pTtVKl9cGWrOe1rdeE_GZwxaCtr6dv8yvogQkUrAG-AFWWP8iElaIpZFXVR2QCrK0K4MBPyGmM7wCMt5X8SU5YzUG2wCfk-_ZTubVK1o_UG5oGpDc4orGJGh_ozOvBoQr0YblyakyIcYu9bjydxmhjsp9I5zag3k5Qjj5ZHfxq8CPSl6-YcBmpHaka6TQka6y2mZlbY9YR6V9vc36xabf_nBwb5SL-2tcz8nZ3-zr7Uzw-3z_Mpo-FFg20RS8F13yBYIwsDceSa90KpmWpjWCsN6zhDa8rJSSXGnM2faU5w6ZhtUElzojczc2XxhjQdKtglyp8dQy6rbVdtrb739osu9jJVut-iYuDaO9lBi73gIpaORPUqG08cI0s67YqD_s33iUM8cOtNxi6AZVLQwc5hJRVwQHq_DuAYttqxT8Qn5RD</recordid><startdate>200702</startdate><enddate>200702</enddate><creator>van der Beek, F B</creator><creator>Soede, W</creator><creator>Frijns, J H. M</creator><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</general><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200702</creationdate><title>Evaluation of the Benefit for Cochlear Implantees of Two Assistive Directional Microphone Systems in an Artificial Diffuse Noise Situation</title><author>van der Beek, F B ; Soede, W ; Frijns, J H. M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3809-b432c2de0ff45f2e52cc931c45cf311bf1828276a3424ce342fb6c21e8817fea3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Amplifiers, Electronic - standards</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cochlear Implants - standards</topic><topic>Deafness - physiopathology</topic><topic>Deafness - surgery</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Noise</topic><topic>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</topic><topic>Speech Perception</topic><topic>Speech Reception Threshold Test</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van der Beek, F B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soede, W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frijns, J H. M</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Ear and hearing</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van der Beek, F B</au><au>Soede, W</au><au>Frijns, J H. M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of the Benefit for Cochlear Implantees of Two Assistive Directional Microphone Systems in an Artificial Diffuse Noise Situation</atitle><jtitle>Ear and hearing</jtitle><addtitle>Ear Hear</addtitle><date>2007-02</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>99</spage><epage>110</epage><pages>99-110</pages><issn>0196-0202</issn><eissn>1538-4667</eissn><coden>EAHEDS</coden><abstract>OBJECTIVE:People with cochlear implants have severe problems with speech understanding in noisy surroundings. This study evaluates and quantifies the effect of two assistive directional microphone systems compared to the standard headpiece microphone on speech perception in quiet surroundings and in background noise, in a laboratory setting developed to reflect a situation whereby the listener is disturbed by a noise with a mainly diffuse character due to many sources in a reverberant room. DESIGN:Thirteen postlingually deafened patients, implanted in the Leiden University Medical Centre with the Clarion CII device, participated in the study. An experimental set-up with 8 uncorrelated steady-state noise sources was used to test speech perception on monosyllabic words. Each subject was tested with a standard headpiece microphone, and the two assistive directional microphones, TX3 Handymic by Phonak and the Linkit array microphone by Etymotic Research. Testing was done in quiet at a level of 65 dB SPL and with decreasing signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) down to –15 dB. RESULTS:Using the assistive directional microphones, speech recognition in background noise improved substantially and was not affected in quiet. At an SNR of 0 dB, the average CVC scores improved from 45% for the headpiece microphone to 67% and 62% for the TX3 Handymic and the Linkit respectively. Compared to the headpiece, the Speech Reception Threshold (SRT) improved by 8.2 dB SNR and 5.9 dB SNR for the TX3 Handymic and the Linkit respectively. The gain in SRT for TX3 Handymic and Linkit was neither correlated to the SRT score with headpiece nor the duration of CI-use. CONCLUSION:The speech recognition test in background noise showed a clear benefit from the assistive directional microphones for cochlear implantees compared to the standard microphone. In a noisy environment, the significant benefit from these assistive device microphones may allow understanding of speech with greater ease.</abstract><cop>Baltimore, MD</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</pub><pmid>17204902</pmid><doi>10.1097/AUD.0b013e31802d0a55</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0196-0202
ispartof Ear and hearing, 2007-02, Vol.28 (1), p.99-110
issn 0196-0202
1538-4667
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1097_AUD_0b013e31802d0a55
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Adult
Amplifiers, Electronic - standards
Biological and medical sciences
Cochlear Implants - standards
Deafness - physiopathology
Deafness - surgery
Equipment Design
Humans
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Noise
Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology
Speech Perception
Speech Reception Threshold Test
title Evaluation of the Benefit for Cochlear Implantees of Two Assistive Directional Microphone Systems in an Artificial Diffuse Noise Situation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T10%3A44%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20the%20Benefit%20for%20Cochlear%20Implantees%20of%20Two%20Assistive%20Directional%20Microphone%20Systems%20in%20an%20Artificial%20Diffuse%20Noise%20Situation&rft.jtitle=Ear%20and%20hearing&rft.au=van%20der%20Beek,%20F%20B&rft.date=2007-02&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=99&rft.epage=110&rft.pages=99-110&rft.issn=0196-0202&rft.eissn=1538-4667&rft.coden=EAHEDS&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/AUD.0b013e31802d0a55&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed_cross%3E17204902%3C/pubmed_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/17204902&rfr_iscdi=true