PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: It is known that subjects with a cochlear implant (CI) need to exert more listening effort to achieve adequate speech recognition compared to normal hearing subjects. One tool for assessing listening effort is pupillometry. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of adaptive directional microphones in reducing listening effort for CI recipients.
METHODS: We evaluated listening in noise and listening effort degree (by pupillometry) in eight bimodal subjects with three types of CI microphones and in three sound configurations.
RESULTS: We found a correlation only between sound configurations and listening in noise score (p-value 0.0095). The evaluation of the microphone types shows worse scores in listening in noise with Opti Omni (+3.15 dB SNR) microphone than with Split Dir (+1.89 dB SNR) and Speech Omni (+1.43 dB SNR). No correlation was found between microphones and sound configurations and within the pupillometric data.
CONCLUSIONS: Different types of microphones have different effects on the listening of CI patients. The difference in the orientation of the sound source is a factor that has an impact on the listening effort results. However, the pupillometry measurements do not significantly correlate with the different microphone types.
METHODS: We evaluated listening in noise and listening effort degree (by pupillometry) in eight bimodal subjects with three types of CI microphones and in three sound configurations.
RESULTS: We found a correlation only between sound configurations and listening in noise score (p-value 0.0095). The evaluation of the microphone types shows worse scores in listening in noise with Opti Omni (+3.15 dB SNR) microphone than with Split Dir (+1.89 dB SNR) and Speech Omni (+1.43 dB SNR). No correlation was found between microphones and sound configurations and within the pupillometric data.
CONCLUSIONS: Different types of microphones have different effects on the listening of CI patients. The difference in the orientation of the sound source is a factor that has an impact on the listening effort results. However, the pupillometry measurements do not significantly correlate with the different microphone types.
摘要：
背景：众所周知，与正常听力受试者相比，具有耳蜗植入物（CI）的受试者需要施加更多的听力才能实现足够的语音识别。评估听力努力的一种工具是瞳孔测量。这项研究的目的是评估自适应定向麦克风在减少CI接受者的听力方面的有效性。
方法：我们用三种类型的CI麦克风和三种声音配置评估了八名双峰受试者的噪音和听力努力程度（通过瞳孔测量）。
结果：我们发现仅在声音配置和听噪声评分之间存在相关性（p值0.0095）。麦克风类型的评估显示，使用OptiOmni（3.15dBSNR）麦克风收听噪声的得分要比使用SplitDir（1.89dBSNR）和SpeechOmni（1.43dBSNR）的得分差。在麦克风和声音配置之间以及在瞳孔测量数据中没有发现相关性。
结论：不同类型的麦克风对CI患者的听力有不同的影响。声源的取向的差异是对收听努力结果有影响的因素。然而,瞳孔测量与不同的麦克风类型没有显着相关。
方法：我们用三种类型的CI麦克风和三种声音配置评估了八名双峰受试者的噪音和听力努力程度（通过瞳孔测量）。
结果：我们发现仅在声音配置和听噪声评分之间存在相关性（p值0.0095）。麦克风类型的评估显示，使用OptiOmni（3.15dBSNR）麦克风收听噪声的得分要比使用SplitDir（1.89dBSNR）和SpeechOmni（1.43dBSNR）的得分差。在麦克风和声音配置之间以及在瞳孔测量数据中没有发现相关性。
结论：不同类型的麦克风对CI患者的听力有不同的影响。声源的取向的差异是对收听努力结果有影响的因素。然而,瞳孔测量与不同的麦克风类型没有显着相关。
