Evalua&on of Fully Adap&ve Direc&onal Microphone Technology with Children

Transcription

1 Evalua&on of Fully Adap&ve Direc&onal Microphone Technology with Children Sara Neumann, Au.D. Elizabeth Musgrave, Au.D. Jace Wolfe, Ph.D Mila Duke, Au.D.

2 The Hearts for Hearing Team Audiologists AddiConal Team Members Jace Wolfe, Ph.D., CCC-A Kris Hopper Kerri Brumley PaC Burns Krystal Hudgens, Au.D., CCC-A Sherry Edwards Susan LaFleur Reyna Romero Megan Marsh, Au.D., CCC-A KrisC Murphy ChrisCan Boone Kelsey Kuehn Sara Neumann, Au.D., CCC-A Verneda Osborne Rachel Odor Jackie Keathly Mila Duke, Au.D., CCC-A Sabrina Calise Rocio PorCllo Elizabeth Musgrave, Au.D., CCC-A Rachel Magann-Faivre, Au.D., F-AAA Johnna Wallace, Au.D., CCC-A Sarah Cain, Au.D., F-AAA Emily Mills, B.S., Audiology Intern Amanda Headley, B.S., Audiology Intern Speech-Language Pathologists Joanna T. Smith, M.S., CCC-SLP, LSLS Cert. AVT Tamara Elder, M.S. CCC-SLP, LSLS Cert. AVT Darcy Stowe, M.S. CCC-SLP, LSLS Cert. AVT Lindsay Hanna, M.S., CCC-SLP, LSLS Cert. AVT Carly Graham, M.S., CCC-SLP, LSLS Cert. AVT Casey Yates, M.S., CCC-SLP Jennifer Bryngelson, CCC-SLP, LSLS Cert. AVT Tessa Hixon, M.S., CCC-SLP Parker Wilson, M.A., CFY-SLP Collaborator Erin C. Schafer, Ph.D., CCC-A, Univ. of North Texas

3 Disclosure This research was par&ally funded by a grant from Cochlear Americas

4 The Problem Children experience greater difficulty hearing in noise than adults (Wolfe et al., 2013) Children with hearing loss experience greater difficulty hearing in noise than children with normal hearing (Wolfe et al., 2013) Direc&onal microphone technology has been shown to improve cochlear implant recipients hearing performance in noise (Wolfe et al., 2012; 2015) There are no studies exploring the advantages and limita&ons of fully adap&ve direc&onal microphone technology for children with cochlear implants

5 Objec&ve Explore the poten&al benefits and limita&ons of a fully adap&ve direc&onal microphone system (i.e., SCAN) for use with pediatric Nucleus 6 sound processor users

6 10 Children Fully Adap&ve Direc&onal Technology for Children Bilateral Nucleus 6 users Ages 7-17 y.o. (mean = 12 y.o.) Compared performance across 2 condi&ons: Default program ASC+ADRO and Standard Mic Mode SCAN ASC+ADRO and Scan fully adap&ve direc&onal microphone SNR-NR & WNR disabled

7 Fully Adap&ve Direc&onal Technology for Children Tested with Nucleus 6 (CP910) MAP used for daily wear Phase 1 AzBio sentence recogni&on in noise across the technology condi&ons Speech Intelligibility Ra&ng Index (Cox & McDaniel, 1989) Phase week real-world trial with journaling to capture technology preference in everyday use Two programs ASC+ADRO with Standard Mic Mode ASC+ADRO with SCAN Fully Adap&ve Direc&onal Mode

8 Fully Adap&ve Direc&onal Technology for Children AzBio Sentences (Spahr et al., 2012) & Classroom Noise (Schafer & Thibodeau), 2006) Four Acous&c Situa&ons (Pearsons et al., 1977) Speech in Quiet Speech: 60 dba Speech in Noise Speech: 65 dba/noise: 55 dba Speech: 65 dba/noise: 60 dba Speech: 65 dba/noise: 65 dba SPEECH Two Programs Standard Mic Mode vs. Scan Condi&ons were counter-balanced NOISE

9 Fully Adap&ve Direc&onal Speech Intelligibility Ra&ng Index (Cox & McDaniel, 1989) Speech in Noise Speech from 0 o Technology for Children Speech from 180 o /Front Facing Speech from 180 o /Face Toward Preferred Direc&on Speech in Loud Noise Speech from 0 o Speech from 180 o /Front Facing Speech from 180 o /Face Toward Preferred Direc&on

10 Journal (2-4 Weeks) Fully Adap&ve Direc&onal Technology for Children Indicate Program Preference (at least twice per condi&on) Cafeteria Classroom Restaurant Car Outdoors

11 Fully Adap&ve Direc&onal Technology for Children Sound Quality Preference Log (UWO Child Amplifica&on Lab) aher 2-4 Weeks Rate sound quality of each program for a variety of situa&ons

12 RESULTS Data analyzed with a 3-factor repeated measures ANOVA: Condi&on (SCAN on/scan off) Signal (Q, +10, +5, 0) Speaker Loca&on (0; 180) Post-hoc: Tukey-Kramer Mul&ple Comparisons Test

13 Quiet Speech from 0 o No significant difference AzBio Sentences % Correct Mic CondiCon

14 Quiet Speech from 180 o No significant difference AzBio Sentences % Correct Mic CondiCon

15 +10 db SNR Speech from 0 o Significant difference AzBio Sentences % Correct Mic CondiCon

16 +5 db SNR Speech from 0 o Significant difference AzBio Sentences % Correct Mic CondiCon

17 0 db SNR Speech from 0 o Significant difference AzBio Sentences % Correct Mic CondiCon

18 +10 db SNR Speech from 180 o No significant difference AzBio Sentences % Correct Mic CondiCon

19 +5 db SNR Speech from 180 o Significant difference AzBio Sentences % Correct Mic CondiCon

20 0 db SNR Speech from 180 o AzBio Sentences % Correct No significant difference Mic CondiCon

21 Scan Benefit One-factor RM ANOVA Significant Difference Significant Difference Significant Difference Benefit from Scan with speech from the front is typically 2 to 3 times greater than detriment when speech is from behind ALL FRONT CONDITIONS BETTER THAN ALL BACK CONDITIONS

22 Speech Intelligibility Ra&ng Speech from 0 o - Facing Forward Significant difference Mic CondiCon

23 Speech Intelligibility Ra&ng Speech from 180 o - Facing Forward Significant difference Mic CondiCon

24 Speech Intelligibility Ra&ng Speech from 180 o - Facing Preferred Significant difference Mic CondiCon

25 Conclusions SCAN shows the poten&al to improve speech recogni&on in noise for school age children with Nucleus 6 cochlear implants. The poten&al advantage from SCAN when the listener faces the speaker of interest appears to outweigh the detriment that occurs when the listener is facing away.

26 Conclusions Children showed a significant preference for SCAN when they faced the signal of interest. They did not report a significant detriment in their ability to understand speech when they faced away from the signal of interest. Research is ongoing to explore the benefit and limita&ons of SCAN for children in real-world use.

27 Shoot for the Moon! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION