1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Effects of directional microphone and adaptive multichannel noise reduction algorithm on cochlear implant performance
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1121/1.2258500
/content/asa/journal/jasa/120/4/10.1121/1.2258500
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/120/4/10.1121/1.2258500

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

The equipment setup for the recording of hearing aid processed testing materials.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

The temporal envelopes of the sentence “The house had nine bedrooms” processed under four hearing aid settings: omni-directional microphone (Om), omni-directional microphone plus noise reduction algorithms (ON), directional microphones (Dm), and directional microphones plus noise reduction algorithms (DN) at SNR of .

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

The overall preference rating scale used in the paired comparison categorical rating paradigm.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

The raw scores obtained by all the cochlear implant listeners when they listened to speech in noise materials processed by a digital hearing aid set to omni-directional microphone (Om), omni-directional microphone plus noise reduction algorithms (ON), directional microphones (Dm), and directional microphones plus noise reduction algorithms (DN) at 5 SNRs. Om represents a condition in which no hearing aid signal processing was added to the cochlear implant speech processor.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

The average overall preference ratings of cochlear implant listeners when they listened to speech processed at omni-directional microphone (Om), omni-directional microphone plus noise reduction algorithms (ON), directional microphones (Dm), and directional microphones plus noise reduction algorithms (DN) at 3 SNRs.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

The average speech recognition scores of cochlear implant users and normal hearing individuals listening to 4 and 8 channels of cochlear simulations in omni-directional microphone (Om), omni-directional microphone plus noise reduction algorithms (ON), directional microphones (Dm), and directional microphones plus noise reduction algorithms (DN) conditions at 5 SNRs.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

The relationship between the average speech recognition scores and the calculated speech transmission indexes (STIs) at the four hearing aid settings for the three groups of listeners at 5 SNRs.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

The effects of the relative number of channels in the noise reduction algorithm and cochlear implant speech processor. Assume that this particular noise reduction algorithm does not reduce the gain of a frequency channel if speech, regardless of SNR, is detected in the channel. If the noise reduction algorithm has the same or lower number of channels than the cochlear implant speech processor (the example on the left side), the overall modulation of the temporal envelope is increased but the within-channel SNRs are not. On the other hand, if the noise reduction algorithm has higher number of channels than the cochlear implant speech processor (the example on the right side), both overall modulation of the temporal envelope and within-channel SNRs are increased.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

The demographic and cochlear implant information of listeners.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

The standard deviations of speech recognition scores of CI users (CI) and normal listeners listening to 8 (Mod8) and 4 (Mod4) channels of cochlear implant simulation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/120/4/10.1121/1.2258500
2006-10-01
2014-04-21
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Effects of directional microphone and adaptive multichannel noise reduction algorithm on cochlear implant performance
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/120/4/10.1121/1.2258500
10.1121/1.2258500
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM