PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8227739

Superdirective arrays for hearing aids.

J M Kates
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Microphone arrays are the most effective of the techniques that have been proposed for improving speech intelligibility in noise for the hearing impaired. However, classical delay-and-sum beamforming provides very small amounts of array gain at low frequencies, while adaptive array processing has been shown to cancel the desired signal in the presence of strong room reflections. Superdirective arrays offer a heretofore overlooked solution in which optimal performance can be obtained for a stationary random noise field, but where the desired signal will not be canceled. A short constrained superdirective array suitable for hearing-aid applications is proposed in this paper, and its theoretical performance is evaluated.

Explore related subjects

Correction of Hearing ImpairmentFemaleHearing AidsHumansMaleNoiseSpeech PerceptionJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J M Kates. 1993. Superdirective arrays for hearing aids.. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.407515

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

[The tasks of the ENT specialist by hearing aid fitting. Part 2: checking the fit, subjective satisfaction, ear mold and hearing aid].

The second part of this series deals with the tasks of the ENT-specialist, who must not endorse the prescription before making sure that the hearing aid recommended by the acoustician will bring sufficient hearing improvement, and that the suggested hearing aid is suitable. The report and audiograms of the acoustician must be compared to his own results, and a check of whether at least three hearing aids from different companies have been compared must be made. The primary aim of patient satisfaction can be checked by means of the "Oldenburger Inventar" (Oldenburg questionnaire), which determines the improvement of hearing ability in quiet and noise, and of auditory localization. Since the otoplastic substantially effects the amplification of the hearing aid, the ENT specialist should make sure that it does not produce feedback, that it has a second boring, and, in case of need, a Libby horn. He should also consider whether an open fitting would be more appropriate. A free-field measurement--with and without noise--shows whether the dB(opt) has been reached. The in situ measurement and the loudness rating by the Würzburger Hörfeld (Wuerzburg auditory field) are of great help in detecting fitting errors. Additional procedures, such as auditory speech training, lip reading, or technical devices, for instance FM-communication or a light alarm clock, are often employed in elderly patients.

Correction of Hearing Impairment↗
PubMed2005

A multisite study to examine the efficacy of the otoacoustic emission/automated auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening protocol: recommendations for policy, practice, and research.

PURPOSE: This article examines whether changes in hearing screening practices are warranted based on the results of the recent series of studies by J. L. Johnson, K. R. White, J. E. Widen, J. S. Gravel, B. R. Vohr, M. James, T. Kennalley, A. B. Maxon, L. Spivak, M. Sullivan-Mahoney, Y. Weirather, and S. Meyer (Johnson, White, Widen, Gravel, James, et al., 2005; Johnson, White, Widen, Gravel, Vohr, et al., 2005; White et al., 2005; Widen et al., 2005) that found a significant number of infants who passed an automated auditory brainstem response (A-ABR) screening after failing an initial otoacoustic emission (OAE) screening later were found to have permanent hearing loss in one or both ears. METHOD: Similar to the approach used by F. H. Bess and J. Paradise (1994), this article addresses the public health tenets that need to be in place before screening programs, or in this case, a change in screening practice (use of a 2-step screening protocol) can be justified. RESULTS: There are no data to suggest that a 2-step OAE/A-ABR screening protocol should be avoided. CONCLUSION: Research is needed before any change in public policy and practice surrounding current early hearing detection and intervention programs could be supported.

Correction of Hearing Impairment↗