Benefit of directional microphones for unilateral, bilateral and bimodal cochlear implant users

Abstract

Objective: To compare the standard T-Mic setting to UltraZoom and StereoZoom in 10 unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users, 10 bimodal device users and 10 bilateral CI users as well as a normal hearing (NH) reference group (n = 10).

Method: Speech reception thresholds were measured using the Oldenburg sentence test in noise. Speech was presented from the front at 0°, noise was presented from five loudspeakers spaced at ±60°, ±120°, 180° (setup A) or from four loudspeakers in the front hemisphere at ±30°, ±60° and one at 180° (setup B).

Results: There was a significant advantage for UltraZoom and StereoZoom for all groups in both setups. The largest advantage was for StereoZoom in the bilateral group (setup A, 5.2 dB, P < 0.001 and B, 3.4 dB, P < 0.001) There was a significant advantage for StereoZoom over UltraZoom in the bimodal group (setup A, P < 0.01 and B, P < 0.05) and in the bilateral group (P < 0.01, setup B only). The bilateral group performed as well as the normally hearing group in both setups and the bimodal group performed as well in setup A. There was a significant benefit of 1.8 dB for ClearVoice over UltraZoom alone for the unilateral group.

Conclusions: UltraZoom and StereoZoom provided a clinically and statistically significant benefit over the T-Mic condition. The largest gain was shown for StereoZoom in the bimodal and bilateral groups. The use of StereoZoom enabled the bilateral group to perform as well as the normally hearing group in both the challenging speaker setups. However, real life environments might provide an even greater challenge than the conditions tested here.

Keywords:

• Directional microphones
• StereoZoom
• UltraZoom
• Bimodal
• Bilateral
• Speech performance

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mrs Keller for her help with the measurements.

Disclaimer statements

Contributors None.

Funding This study was funded by Advanced Bionics GmbH.

Conflicts of interest We would highlight the fact that the third author is employee of Advanced Bionics, the manufacturer of the device under investigation in this report.

Ethics approval Approval was given by the Charité Medical University Berlin (Universitätsmedizin Berlin) ethics committee. Approval: EA1/124/15.

ORCID

Kristina Anton http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7686-4740