Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11(01): 23-35
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748005
Original Article

Speech Recognition with In-the-Ear and Behind-the-Ear Dual-Microphone Hearing Instruments

John M. Pumford
Hearing Health Care Research Unit, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
currently affiliated with Etymonic Design Inc ., Dorchester, Ontario, Canada
,
Richard C. Seewald
Hearing Health Care Research Unit, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
,
Susan D. Scollie
Hearing Health Care Research Unit, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
,
Lorienne M. Jenstad
Hearing Health Care Research Unit, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to compare the overall listening benefit in diffuse noise provided by dual-microphone technology in an in-the-ear (ITE) hearing instrument to that provided by dual-microphone technology in a behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing instrument. Further, the study was designed to determine whether the use of the dual-microphone + the manufacturer's party response algorithm in the ITE and BTE hearing instruments provided listening benefit in diffuse noise over their respective omnidirectional microphone modes. Twenty-four adults with mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss were evaluated while wearing binaural BTE and ITE hearing instruments. The results indicated that the dual-microphone + party response mode did provide significant benefit in diffuse noise for both the ITE (3.27 dB signal-to-noise ratio [SNR] improvement) and BTE (5.77 dB SNR improvement) hearing instruments relative to their respective conventional omnidirectional microphones. No significant difference in performance was found between the ITE and BTE hearing instruments when each device was in the dual-microphone + party response mode. It is concluded that the use of dual-microphone technology in both ITE and BTE hearing instruments can improve speech recognition in diffuse noise.

Abbreviations: BTE = behind the ear, DI = Directivity Index, DSL [i/o] = desired sensation level input/output, HINT = Hearing in Noise Test, ITE = in the ear, KEMAR = Knowles electronic manikin for acoustic research, REAR = real-ear aided response, RECD = real-ear-to-coupler difference, RESR = real-ear saturation response, RTS = reception threshold for sentences, SC + a.R.T = super compression plus adaptive recovery time, SNR = signal-to-noise ratio

Key Words

Directional microphone - dual microphone - hearing instruments - omnidirectional microphone - signal-to-noise ratio - speech recognition


Publication History

Article published online:
05 April 2022

© 2000. 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

  • Agnew J. (1996). Directionality in hearing...revisited. Hear Rev 3(81:20–25.
  • Bachler H, VonlanthenA. (1994). PiCS comfort programs. Signal processing tools to support your manner of communication. Phonak Focus 17.
  • Bachler H, VonlanthenA. (1995). AudioZoom signal processing for improved communication in noise. Phonak Focus 18.
  • Bender D, Mueller HG. (1984). Factors influencing the decision to obtain amplification. ASHA 26(10): 120.
  • Byrne D, Dillon H. (1986). The National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) new procedure for selecting gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 7:257–265.
  • Chasin M. (1994). Improving signal-to-noise ratio with directional microphones. Hear lustrum 45(2):31–33.
  • Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG. (1994). Fitting wide dynamic range compression hearing aids: the DSL li/o] approach. Hear J 47(10):23–29.
  • Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG. (1995). The input/output (i/o) formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am 97:1854–1864.
  • Elberling C, Ludvigsen C, Lyregaard PE. (1989). DAN-TALE: a new Danish speech material. Scand Audiol 18:169–175.
  • Fortune TW. (1997). Real-ear polar patterns and aided directional sensitivity. J Am Acad Audiol 8:119-131.
  • Hawkins D, Yacullo WS. (1984). Signal-to-noise ratio advantage of binaural hearing aids and directional microphones under different levels of reverberation. J Speech Hear Disord 49:278–286.
  • Kochkin S. (1996). Customer satisfaction and subjective benefit with high performance hearing aids. Hear Rev 3(12):16–26.
  • Lurquin P, Rafhay S. (1996). Intelligibility in noise using multimicrophone hearing aids. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 50:103–109.
  • Madison TK, Hawkins DB. (1983). The signal-to-noise ratio advantage of directional microphones. Hear lustrum 34(2):18, 49.
  • Moodie KS, Seewald RC, Sinclair ST. (1994). Procedure for predicting real-ear hearing aid performance in young children. Am J Audiol 3:23–31.
  • Mueller HG, Hawkins D. (1990). Three important considerations in hearing aid selection. In: Sandlin R, ed. Handbook of Hearing Aid Amplification, volume 11: Clinical Considerations and Fitting Practices. San Diego: College-Hill Press, 31–60.
  • Preves DA. (1997). Directional microphone use in ITE hearing instruments. Hear Rev 4(7):21-22, 24–27.
  • Soede W, Berkhout AJ, Bilsen FA. (1993). Development of a new directional instrument based on array technology. J Acoust Soc Am 94:785–798.
  • Soli SD, Nilsson M. (1994). Assessment of communication handicap with the HINT. Hearlnstrum 45:12, 15–16.
  • Valente M, Fabry DA, Potts LG. (1995). Recognition of speech in noise with hearing aids using dual microphones. J Am Acad Audiol 6:440–449.
  • Voss T. (1997). Clinical evaluation of multi-microphone hearing instruments. Hear Rev 4(9):36, 45, 74.