Speech understanding in noise for cochlear implant recipients using a spatial noise reduction setting in an off the ear sound processor with directional microphones

References

• Bayri, M., Çiprut, A. 2020. The effects of behind-the-ear and off-the-ear sound processors on speech understanding performance in cochlear implant users. Auris, Nasus, Larynx, 47(6): 950–957. doi:10.1016/J.ANL.2020.05.025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beiter, A.L., Nel, E. 2015. The history of CochlearTM nucleus® sound processor upgrades: 30 years and counting. Journal of Otology, 10(3): 108. doi:10.1016/J.JOTO.2015.10.001.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Biever, A., Gilden, J., Zwolan, T., Mears, M., Beiter, A. 2018. Upgrade to Nucleus ® 6 in previous generation CochlearTM sound processor recipients. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 29(9): 802–813. doi:10.3766/JAAA.17016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson, P.W., Hersbach, A.A., Swanson, B.A. 2013. An adaptive Australian sentence test in noise (Austin). Ear and Hearing, 34(5): 592–600. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31828576fb.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dazert, S., Thomas, J.P., Büchner, A., Müller, J., Hempel, J.M., Löwenheim, H., Mlynski, R. 2017. Off the ear with no loss in speech understanding: comparing the RONDO and the OPUS 2 cochlear implant audio processors. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology : Official Journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : Affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 274(3): 1391–1395. doi:10.1007/S00405-016-4400-Z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Ceulaer, G., Swinnen, F., Pascoal, D., Philips, B., Killian, M., James, C., et al. 2015. Conversion of adult Nucleus® 5 cochlear implant users to the Nucleus® 6 system. Cochlear Implants International, 16(4): 222–232.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dillier, N., Lai, W.K. 2015. Speech intelligibility in various noise conditions with the Nucleus® 5 CP810 sound processor. Audiology Research, 5(2): 69–75. doi:10.4081/AUDIORES.2015.132.
   Google Scholar
• Dixon, P.R., Shipp, D., Smilsky, K., Lin, V.Y., le, T., Chen, J.M. 2019. Association of speech processor technology and speech recognition outcomes in adult cochlear implant users. Otology & Neurotology : Official Publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology, 40(5): 595–601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorman, M.F., Gifford, R.H. 2017. Speech understanding in complex listening environments by listeners fit with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research : JSLHR, 60(10): 3019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn, M.C., Hedin, A., Halvarsson, G., Good, T., Sadeghi, A. 2012. Hearing performance benefits of a programmable power baha® sound processor with a directional microphone for patients with a mixed hearing loss. Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology, 5(Suppl 1): S76–S81. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22701154.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Flynn, M.C., Sadeghi, A., Halvarsson, G. 2011. Benefits of directional microphones and noise reduction circuits for improving Baha® hearing performance. Cochlear Implants International, 12(suppl 1): S139–S141.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Godey, B., Darrouzet, V., Ruben, H., Mosnier, I., Poncet, C., Schmerber, S., et al. 2020. Comparing behind-the-ear and single-unit cochlear implant audio processors in 83 newly implanted subjects. Journal of Hearing Science, 10(4): 33–39.
   Google Scholar
• Grizzle, J.E., Allen, D.M. 1969. Analysis of growth and dose response curves. Biometrics, 25(2): 357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hersbach, A., Arora, K., Mauger, S., Dawson, P. 2012. Combining directional microphone and single-channel noise reduction algorithms: a clinical evaluation in difficult listening conditions with cochlear implant users. Ear and Hearing, 33(4): e13–e23. doi:10.1097/AUD.0B013E31824B9E21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hey, M., Böhnke, B., Mewes, A., Munder, P., Mauger, S.J., Hocke, T. 2021. Speech comprehension across multiple CI processor generations: scene dependent signal processing. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, 6(4): 807–815. doi:10.1002/LIO2.564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hey, M., Hocke, T., Böhnke, B., Mauger, S.J. 2019. Forwardfocus with cochlear implant recipients in spatially separated and fluctuating competing signals–introduction of a reference metric. International Journal of Audiology, 58(12): 869–878.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauger, S., Jones, M., Nel, E., del Dot, J. 2017. Clinical outcomes with the KansoTM off-the-ear cochlear implant sound processor. International Journal of Audiology, 56(4): 267–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauger, S., Warren, C., Knight, M., Goorevich, M., Nel, E. 2014. Clinical evaluation of the Nucleus 6 cochlear implant system: performance improvements with SmartSound iQ. International Journal of Audiology, 53(8): 564–576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mertens, G., Hofkens, A., Punte, A.K., de Bodt, M., van de Heyning, P. 2015. Hearing performance in single-sided deaf cochlear implant users after upgrade to a single-unit speech processor. Otology and Neurotology, 36(1): 51–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosnier, I., Marx, M., Venail, F., Loundon, N., Roux-Vaillard, S., Sterkers, O. 2014. Benefits from upgrade to the CP810 sound processor for Nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology : Official Journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : Affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 271(1): 49–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosnier, I., Mathias, N., Flament, J., Amar, D., Liagre-Callies, A., Borel, S., et al. 2017. Benefit of the UltraZoom beamforming technology in noise in cochlear implant users. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 274(9): 3335–3342. doi:10.1007/S00405-017-4651-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosnier, I., Sterkers, O., Nguyen, Y., Lahlou, G. 2021. Benefits in noise from sound processor upgrade in thirty-three cochlear implant users for more than 20 years. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology : Official Journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : Affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 278(3): 827–831.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, P.B., Jin, S.-H., Carney, A.E., Nelson, D.A. 2003. Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(2): 961–968.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearsons, K., Bennett, R., Fidell, S. 1977. Speech levels in various noise environments | science inventory | US EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/1-77/025 (NTIS PB270053). https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?Lab = ORD&dirEntryID = 45786.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, G.E., Lehiste, I. 1962. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. The Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 27: 62–70. doi:10.1044/JSHD.2701.62.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Seebens, Y., Diller, G. 2012. Improvements in speech perception after the upgrade from the TEMPO+ to the OPUS 2 audio processor. ORL, 74(1): 6–11.
   Google Scholar
• Smeds, K., Wolters, F., Rung, M. 2015. Estimation of signal-to-noise ratios in realistic sound scenarios. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 26(2): 183–196. doi:10.3766/JAAA.26.2.7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spahr, A.J., Dorman, M.F., Loiselle, L.H. 2007. Performance of patients using different cochlear implant systems: effects of input dynamic range. Ear and Hearing, 28(2): 260–275. doi:10.1097/AUD.0B013E3180312607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todorov, M., Galvin, K. 2018. Benefits of upgrading to the Nucleus ® 6 sound processor for a wider clinical population. Cochlear Implants International, 19(4): 210–215.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Hoesel, R.J.M., Clark, G.M. 1995. Evaluation of a portable two-microphone adaptive beamforming speech processor with cochlear implant patients. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(4): 2498–2503.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, C.D., Nel, E., Boyd, P.J. 2019. Controlled comparative clinical trial of hearing benefit outcomes for users of the CochlearTM Nucleus ® 7 sound processor with mobile connectivity. Cochlear Implants International, 20(3): 116–126.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wesarg, T., Voss, B., Hassepass, F., Beck, R., Aschendorff, A., Laszig, R., Arndt, S. 2018. Speech perception in quiet and noise with an off the ear CI processor enabling adaptive microphone directionality. Otology and Neurotology, 39(4): e240–e249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wimmer, W., Caversaccio, M., Kompis, M. 2015. Speech intelligibility in noise with a single-unit cochlear implant audio processor. Otology & Neurotology : Official Publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology, 36(7): 1197–1202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe, J., Parkinson, A., Schafer, E.C., Gilden, J., Rehwinkel, K., Mansanares, J., et al. 2012. Benefit of a commercially available cochlear implant processor with dual-microphone beamforming: a multi-center study. Otology and Neurotology, 33(4): 553–560. doi:10.1097/MAO.0B013E31825367A5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar