We have investigated the effectiveness of three noise-reduction algorithms, namely an adaptive monaural beamformer (MB), a fixed binaural beamformer (BB), and a single-microphone stationary-noise... Show moreWe have investigated the effectiveness of three noise-reduction algorithms, namely an adaptive monaural beamformer (MB), a fixed binaural beamformer (BB), and a single-microphone stationary-noise reduction algorithm (SNRA) by assessing the speech reception threshold (SRT) in a group of 15 bimodal cochlear implant users. Speech was presented frontally towards the listener and background noise was established as a homogeneous field of long-term speech-spectrum-shaped (LTSS) noise or 8-talker babble. We pursued four research questions, namely: whether the benefits of beamforming on the SRT differ between LTSS noise and 8-talker babble; whether BB is more effective than MB; whether SNRA improves the SRT in LTSS noise; and whether the SRT benefits of MB and BB are comparable to their improvement of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The results showed that MB and BB significantly improved SRTs by an average of 2.6 dB and 2.9 dB, respectively. These benefits did not statistically differ between noise types or between the two beamformers. By contrast, physical SNR improvements obtained with a manikin revealed substantially greater benefits of BB (6.6 dB) than MB (3.3 dB). SNRA did not significantly affect SRTs per se in omnidirectional microphone settings, nor in combination with MB and BB. We conclude that in the group of bimodal listeners tested, BB had no additional benefits on speech recognition over MB in homogeneous noise, despite the finding that BB had a substantial larger benefit on the SNR than MB. SNRA did not improve speech recognition. Show less
Cochlear implant (CI) users have more difficulty understanding speech in temporally modulated noise than in steady-state (SS) noise. This is thought to be caused by the limited low-frequency... Show moreCochlear implant (CI) users have more difficulty understanding speech in temporally modulated noise than in steady-state (SS) noise. This is thought to be caused by the limited low-frequency information that CIs provide, as well as by the envelope coding in CIs that discards the temporal fine structure (TFS). Contralateral amplification with a hearing aid, referred to as bimodal hearing, can potentially provide CI users with TFS cues to complement the envelope cues provided by the CI signal. In this study, we investigated whether the use of a CI alone provides access to only envelope cues and whether acoustic amplification can provide additional access to TFS cues. To this end, we evaluated speech recognition in bimodal listeners, using SS noise and two amplitude-modulated noise types, namely babble noise and amplitude-modulated steady-state (AMSS) noise. We hypothesized that speech recognition in noise depends on the envelope of the noise, but not on its TFS when listening with a CI. Secondly, we hypothesized that the amount of benefit gained by the addition of a contralateral hearing aid depends on both the envelope and TFS of the noise. The two amplitude-modulated noise types decreased speech recognition more effectively than SS noise. Against expectations, however, we found that babble noise decreased speech recognition more effectively than AMSS noise in the CI-only condition. Therefore, we rejected our hypothesis that TFS is not available to CI users. In line with expectations, we found that the bimodal benefit was highest in babble noise. However, there was no significant difference between the bimodal benefit obtained in SS and AMSS noise. Our results suggest that a CI alone can provide TFS cues and that bimodal benefits in noise depend on TFS, but not on the envelope of the noise. Show less
Zon, A. van; Smulders, Y.E.; Stegeman, I.; Ramakers, G.G.J.; Kraaijenga, V.J.C.; Koenraads, S.P.C.; ... ; Grolman, W. 2017
