This study compares bone conduction (BC) thresholds obtained with two bone vibrators (BV): The Radioear B71 and an advanced BV, the Radioear B81. B81 has less distortion and is capable of higher output levels. Two tests with 20 normal hearing subjects were conducted to determine if the low distortion of B81 offers any advantages for audiometry. Hearing threshold differences between B71 and B81 are only significant at 250 Hz for levels between 20 dB hearing level (HL) and 30 dB HL. At other frequencies and higher levels, where B81 also performs with less distortion than B71, tactile responses interfere before B81 can be advantageous.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the impact of reverberation on sound localization accuracy and speech perception in noise between subjects with single-sided deafness using a cochlear implant (SSD-CI) and a normal-hearing control group. Methods: Nine SSD-CI subjects and 21 normal-hearing subjects participated in the study. In Experiment 1, the sound localization accuracy was measured with and without reverberation. In Experiment 2, speech reception thresholds were determined with four asymmetrically arranged noise sources in free-field and in reverberation. For the realization of reverberation, a room simulation system comprising of 128 loudspeakers was used. Results: No significant impact of reverberation was found on the sound localization accuracy of the SSD-CI subjects (free-field: 12.6°, reverberation: 11.9°), whereas the normal-hearing subjects performed significantly worse in reverberation (free-field: 1.8°, reverberation: 3.3°). Both subject groups experienced significantly deteriorated speech reception thresholds due to reverberation (p SSD-CI = 0.008, p NH < 0.001). Mean speech reception thresholds in the SSD-CI subjects were −9.7 dB SNR (free-field) and −4.2 dB SNR (reverberation) and a median individual decrease of 5.7 dB SNR in reverberation. Mean speech reception thresholds in the normal-hearing group were −14.0 dB SNR (free-field) and −10.3 dB SNR (reverberation). Conclusion: A strong deterioration of sound localization accuracy due to reverberation did not occur. However, although partial restoration of binaural hearing is assumed in SSD-CI users, the impact of reverberation on speech perception in noise is much stronger compared to normal-hearing.

Clinical speech perception tests with simple presentation conditions often overestimate the impact of signal preprocessing on speech perception in complex listening environments. A new procedure was developed to assess speech perception in interleaved acoustic environments of different complexity that allows investigation of the impact of an automatic scene classification (ASC) algorithm on speech perception. The procedure was applied in cohorts of normal hearing (NH) controls and uni- and bilateral cochlear implant (CI) users. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were measured by means of a matrix sentence test in five acoustic environments that included different noise conditions (amplitude modulated and continuous), two spatial configurations, and reverberation. The acoustic environments were encapsulated in a randomized, mixed order single experimental run. Acoustic room simulation was played back with a loudspeaker auralization setup with 128 loudspeakers. 18 NH, 16 unilateral, and 16 bilateral CI users participated. SRTs were evaluated for each individual acoustic environment and as mean-SRT. Mean-SRTs improved by 2.4 dB signal-to-noise ratio for unilateral and 1.3 dB signal-to-noise ratio for bilateral CI users with activated ASC. Without ASC, the mean-SRT of bilateral CI users was 3.7 dB better than the SRT of unilateral CI users. The mean-SRT indicated significant differences, with NH group performing best and unilateral CI users performing worse with a difference of up to 13 dB compared to NH. The proposed speech test procedure successfully demonstrated that speech perception and benefit with ASC depend on the acoustic environment.

No abstract