Spatial speech-in-noise performance in simulated single-sided deaf and bimodal cochlear implant users in comparison with real patients

OBJECTIVE

Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in spatial scenarios were measured in simulated cochlear implant (CI) listeners with either contralateral normal hearing, or aided hearing impairment (bimodal), and compared to SRTs of real patients, who were measured using the exact same paradigm, to assess goodness of simulation.

DESIGN

CI listening was simulated using a vocoder incorporating actual CI signal processing and physiologic details of electric stimulation on one side. Unprocessed signals or simulation of aided moderate or profound hearing impairment was used contralaterally. Three spatial speech-in-noise scenarios were tested using virtual acoustics to assess spatial release from masking (SRM) and combined benefit.

STUDY SAMPLE

Eleven normal-hearing listeners participated in the experiment.

RESULTS

For contralateral normal and aided moderately impaired hearing, bilaterally assessed SRTs were not statistically different from unilateral SRTs of the better ear, indicating "better-ear-listening". Combined benefit was only found for contralateral profound impaired hearing. As in patients, SRM was highest for contralateral normal hearing and decreased systematically with more severe simulated impairment. Comparison to actual patients showed good reproduction of SRTs, SRM, and better-ear-listening.

CONCLUSIONS

The simulations reproduced better-ear-listening as in patients and suggest that combined benefit in spatial scenes predominantly occurs when both ears show poor speech-in-noise performance.

Evaluating Spatial Hearing Using a Dual-Task Approach in a Virtual-Acoustics Environment

Spatial hearing is critical for communication in everyday sound-rich environments. It is important to gain an understanding of how well users of bilateral hearing devices function in these conditions. The purpose of this work was to evaluate a Virtual Acoustics (VA) version of the Spatial Speech in Noise (SSiN) test, the SSiN-VA. This implementation uses relatively inexpensive equipment and can be performed outside the clinic, allowing for regular monitoring of spatial-hearing performance. The SSiN-VA simultaneously assesses speech discrimination and relative localization with changing source locations in the presence of noise. The use of simultaneous tasks increases the cognitive load to better represent the difficulties faced by listeners in noisy real-world environments. Current clinical assessments may require costly equipment which has a large footprint. Consequently, spatial-hearing assessments may not be conducted at all. Additionally, as patients take greater control of their healthcare outcomes and a greater number of clinical appointments are conducted remotely, outcome measures that allow patients to carry out assessments at home are becoming more relevant. The SSiN-VA was implemented using the 3D Tune-In Toolkit, simulating seven loudspeaker locations spaced at 30° intervals with azimuths between -90° and +90°, and rendered for headphone playback using the binaural spatialization technique. Twelve normal-hearing participants were assessed to evaluate if SSiN-VA produced patterns of responses for relative localization and speech discrimination as a function of azimuth similar to those previously obtained using loudspeaker arrays. Additionally, the effect of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the direction of the shift from target to reference, and the target phonetic contrast on performance were investigated. SSiN-VA led to similar patterns of performance as a function of spatial location compared to loudspeaker setups for both relative localization and speech discrimination. Performance for relative localization was significantly better at the highest SNR than at the lowest SNR tested, and a target shift to the right was associated with an increased likelihood of a correct response. For word discrimination, there was an interaction between SNR and word group. Overall, these outcomes support the use of virtual audio for speech discrimination and relative localization testing in noise.

Speech Intelligibility and Spatial Release From Masking Improvements Using Spatial Noise Reduction Algorithms in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users

This study investigated the speech intelligibility benefit of using two different spatial noise reduction algorithms in cochlear implant (CI) users who use a hearing aid (HA) on the contralateral side (bimodal CI users). The study controlled for head movements by using head-related impulse responses to simulate a realistic cafeteria scenario and controlled for HA and CI manufacturer differences by using the master hearing aid platform (MHA) to apply both hearing loss compensation and the noise reduction algorithms (beamformers). Ten bimodal CI users with moderate to severe hearing loss contralateral to their CI participated in the study, and data from nine listeners were included in the data analysis. The beamformers evaluated were the adaptive differential microphones (ADM) implemented independently on each side of the listener and the (binaurally implemented) minimum variance distortionless response (MVDR). For frontal speech and stationary noise from either left or right, an improvement (reduction) of the speech reception threshold of 5.4 dB and 5.5 dB was observed using the ADM, and 6.4 dB and 7.0 dB using the MVDR, respectively. As expected, no improvement was observed for either algorithm for colocated speech and noise. In a 20-talker babble noise scenario, the benefit observed was 3.5 dB for ADM and 7.5 dB for MVDR. The binaural MVDR algorithm outperformed the bilaterally applied monaural ADM. These results encourage the use of beamformer algorithms such as the ADM and MVDR by bimodal CI users in everyday life scenarios.

Spatial Speech-in-Noise Performance in Bimodal and Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users

This study compared spatial speech-in-noise performance in two cochlear implant (CI) patient groups: bimodal listeners, who use a hearing aid contralaterally to support their impaired acoustic hearing, and listeners with contralateral normal hearing, i.e., who were single-sided deaf before implantation. Using a laboratory setting that controls for head movements and that simulates spatial acoustic scenes, speech reception thresholds were measured for frontal speech-in-stationary noise from the front, the left, or the right side. Spatial release from masking (SRM) was then extracted from speech reception thresholds for monaural and binaural listening. SRM was found to be significantly lower in bimodal CI than in CI single-sided deaf listeners. Within each listener group, the SRM extracted from monaural listening did not differ from the SRM extracted from binaural listening. In contrast, a normal-hearing control group showed a significant improvement in SRM when using two ears in comparison to one. Neither CI group showed a binaural summation effect; that is, their performance was not improved by using two devices instead of the best monaural device in each spatial scenario. The results confirm a "listening with the better ear" strategy in the two CI patient groups, where patients benefited from using two ears/devices instead of one by selectively attending to the better one. Which one is the better ear, however, depends on the spatial scenario and on the individual configuration of hearing loss.

Coherent Coding of Enhanced Interaural Cues Improves Sound Localization in Noise With Bilateral Cochlear Implants

Bilateral cochlear implant (BCI) users only have very limited spatial hearing abilities. Speech coding strategies transmit interaural level differences (ILDs) but in a distorted manner. Interaural time difference (ITD) information transmission is even more limited. With these cues, most BCI users can coarsely localize a single source in quiet, but performance quickly declines in the presence of other sound. This proof-of-concept study presents a novel signal processing algorithm specific for BCIs, with the aim to improve sound localization in noise. The core part of the BCI algorithm duplicates a monophonic electrode pulse pattern and applies quasistationary natural or artificial ITDs or ILDs based on the estimated direction of the dominant source. Three experiments were conducted to evaluate different algorithm variants: Experiment 1 tested if ITD transmission alone enables BCI subjects to lateralize speech. Results showed that six out of nine BCI subjects were able to lateralize intelligible speech in quiet solely based on ITDs. Experiments 2 and 3 assessed azimuthal angle discrimination in noise with natural or modified ILDs and ITDs. Angle discrimination for frontal locations was possible with all variants, including the pure ITD case, but for lateral reference angles, it was only possible with a linearized ILD mapping. Speech intelligibility in noise, limitations, and challenges of this interaural cue transmission approach are discussed alongside suggestions for modifying and further improving the BCI algorithm.

Better-ear glimpsing with symmetrically-placed interferers in bilateral cochlear implant users

For a frontal target in spatially symmetrically placed interferers, normal hearing (NH) listeners can use "better-ear glimpsing" to select time-frequency segments with favorable signal-to-noise ratio in either ear. With an ideal monaural better-ear mask (IMBM) processing, some studies showed that NH listeners can reach similar performance as in the natural binaural listening condition, although interaural phase differences at low frequencies can further improve performance. In principle, bilateral cochlear implant (BiCI) listeners could use the same better-ear glimpsing, albeit without exploiting interaural phase differences. Speech reception thresholds of NH and BiCI listeners were measured in three interferers (speech-shaped stationary noise, nonsense speech, or single talker) either co-located with the target, symmetrically placed at ±60°, or independently presented to each ear, with and without IMBM processing. Furthermore, a bilateral noise vocoder based on the BiCI electrodogram was used in the same NH listeners. Headphone presentation and direct stimulation with head-related transfer functions for spatialization were used in NH and BiCI listeners, respectively. Compared to NH listeners, both NH listeners with vocoder and BiCI listeners showed strongly reduced binaural benefit from spatial separation. However, both groups greatly benefited from IMBM processing as part of the stimulation strategy.

Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Users With and Without Access to Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing

For normal-hearing listeners, speech intelligibility improves if speech and noise are spatially separated. While this spatial release from masking has already been quantified in normal-hearing listeners in many studies, it is less clear how spatial release from masking changes in cochlear implant listeners with and without access to low-frequency acoustic hearing. Spatial release from masking depends on differences in access to speech cues due to hearing status and hearing device. To investigate the influence of these factors on speech intelligibility, the present study measured speech reception thresholds in spatially separated speech and noise for 10 different listener types. A vocoder was used to simulate cochlear implant processing and low-frequency filtering was used to simulate residual low-frequency hearing. These forms of processing were combined to simulate cochlear implant listening, listening based on low-frequency residual hearing, and combinations thereof. Simulated cochlear implant users with additional low-frequency acoustic hearing showed better speech intelligibility in noise than simulated cochlear implant users without acoustic hearing and had access to more spatial speech cues (e.g., higher binaural squelch). Cochlear implant listener types showed higher spatial release from masking with bilateral access to low-frequency acoustic hearing than without. A binaural speech intelligibility model with normal binaural processing showed overall good agreement with measured speech reception thresholds, spatial release from masking, and spatial speech cues. This indicates that differences in speech cues available to listener types are sufficient to explain the changes of spatial release from masking across these simulated listener types.