SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2013 / Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 1

The effects of an adaptive directional BEAM microphone on the mismatch negativity responses of cochlear implant users in noise

Ferda AKDAŞ
Asuman ERDOĞAN
Pages
174–184
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

BEAM technology provides an ease of discrimination similar to quiet settings for cochlear implant recipients in noisy environments (BEAM and Freedom are trademarks of Cochlear Limited).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:To investigate the effects of noise on mismatch negativity (MMN) responses and the possible benefits of an adaptive directional BEAM microphone in noise during MMN recordings, and to compare the cochlear implant-evoked potential results with normal hearing subjects.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and methods: /da/ and /di/ speech stimuli were used to elicit MMN responses in 11 Freedom cochlear implant users and in 11 normal hearing subjects.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:BEAM technology provides an ease of discrimination similar to quiet settings for cochlear implant recipients in noisy environments (BEAM and Freedom are trademarks of Cochlear Limited).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Key words: Mismatch negativity · cochlear implant · adaptive directional BEAM microphone

Abstract

To investigate the effects of noise on mismatch negativity (MMN) responses and the possible benefits of an adaptive directional BEAM microphone in noise during MMN recordings, and to compare the cochlear implant-evoked potential results with normal hearing subjects. Materials and methods: /da/ and /di/ speech stimuli were used to elicit MMN responses in 11 Freedom cochlear implant users and in 11 normal hearing subjects. Speech noise was delivered at 80 dB sound pressure level (-10 dB signal-to-noise ratio). All subjects were tested in quiet and noisy conditions. To compare the microphone effects, MMN responses for the cochlear implant group were recorded with an omnidirectional and adaptive directional BEAM microphone mode in noise. Results: The MMN responses of the cochlear implantees and the normal hearing group were remarkably similar in terms of latency, amplitude, and morphology in both quiet and noisy conditions. MMN peak latencies were significantly prolonged in the noisy conditions compared to the quiet conditions for both groups. There was a significant decrease in MMN latencies when using an adaptive directional microphone in noise. Conclusion: MMN could be a useful tool to evaluate postoperative cortical auditory performance. BEAM technology provides an ease of discrimination similar to quiet settings for cochlear implant recipients in noisy environments (BEAM and Freedom are trademarks of Cochlear Limited).

Özet

To investigate the effects of noise on mismatch negativity (MMN) responses and the possible benefits of an adaptive directional BEAM microphone in noise during MMN recordings, and to compare the cochlear implant-evoked potential results with normal hearing subjects. Materials and methods: /da/ and /di/ speech stimuli were used to elicit MMN responses in 11 Freedom cochlear implant users and in 11 normal hearing subjects. Speech noise was delivered at 80 dB sound pressure level (-10 dB signal-to-noise ratio). All subjects were tested in quiet and noisy conditions. To compare the microphone effects, MMN responses for the cochlear implant group were recorded with an omnidirectional and adaptive directional BEAM microphone mode in noise. Results: The MMN responses of the cochlear implantees and the normal hearing group were remarkably similar in terms of latency, amplitude, and morphology in both quiet and noisy conditions. MMN peak latencies were significantly prolonged in the noisy conditions compared to the quiet conditions for both groups. There was a significant decrease in MMN latencies when using an adaptive directional microphone in noise. Conclusion: MMN could be a useful tool to evaluate postoperative cortical auditory performance. BEAM technology provides an ease of discrimination similar to quiet settings for cochlear implant recipients in noisy environments (BEAM and Freedom are trademarks of Cochlear Limited).

🔖

Cite This Article

AKDAŞ, F., ERDOĞAN, A. (2022). The effects of an adaptive directional BEAM microphone on the mismatch negativity responses of cochlear implant users in noise. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 1, 174–184. https://ajindex.com/articles/611013

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Plomp R, Mimpen AM. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am 1979; 66: 1333–42.
  2. Versfeld NJ, Daalder L, Festen JM, Houtgast T. Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurements of the reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107: 1671–84.
  3. Wouters J, Vanden Berghe J. Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implantees with a two-microphone monaural adaptive noise reduction system. Ear Hear 2001; 22: 420–30.
  4. Spriet A, Van Deun L, Eftaxiadis K, Laneau J, Moonen M, van Dijk B et al. Speech understanding in background noise with the two-microphone adaptive beamformer (BEAM) in the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear Implant System. Ear Hear 2007; 28: 62–72.
  5. Kileny PR, Boerst A, Zwolan T. Cognitive evoked potentials to speech and tonal stimuli in children with implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997; 117: 161–9.
  6. Kraus N, McGee T, Sharma A, Carrell T, Nicol T. Mismatch negativity event-related potential elicited by speech stimuli. Ear Hear 1992; 13: 158–64.
  7. Kraus N, Micco A, Koch DB, McGee T, Carrell T, Sharma A et al. The mismatch negativity cortical evoked potential elicited by speech in cochlear-implant users. Hear Res 1993; 65: 118– Micco A, Kraus N, Koch DB, McGee TJ, Carrell TD, Sharma A et al. Speech-evoked cognitive P300 potentials in cochlear implant recipients. Am J Otol 1995; 16: 514–20.
  8. Ponton CW, Eggermont JJ, Don M, Waring MD, Kwong B, Cunningham J et al. Maturation of the mismatch negativity: effects of profound deafness and cochlear implant use. Audiol Neurootol 2000; 5: 167–85. Kileny PR. Use of electrophysiologic measures in the management of children with cochlear implants: brainstem, middle latency and cognitive (P300) responses. Am J Otol 1991; 12: 37–42. Näätänen R. Paavilainen P, Rinne T, Alho K. The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: a review. Clin Neurophysiol 2007; 118: 2544–90. Näätänen R, Sams M, Alho K. Mismatch negativity: the ERP sign of a cerebral mismatch process. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1986; 38: 172–7.
  9. Korczak PA, Kurtzberg D, Stapells DR. Effects of sensorineural hearing loss and personal hearing aids on cortical event-related potential and behavioral measures of speech-sound processing. Ear Hear 2005; 26: 165–85.
  10. Roman S, Canévet G, Marquis P, Triglia JM, Liégeois-Chauvel C. Relationship between auditory perception skills and mismatch negativity recorded in free field in cochlear-implant users. Hear Res