Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Common Sounds Audiograms: Quantitative Analyses and Recommendations.

Seminars in hearing·2023
Same author

Evaluation of the American English Matrix Test with Cochlear Implant Recipients.

International journal of audiology·2023
Same author

Conductive component after cochlear implantation in patients with residual hearing conservation.

American journal of audiology·2014
Same author

Effect of different signal-processing options on speech-in-noise recognition for cochlear implant recipients with the cochlear CP810 speech processor.

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology·2014
Same author

Transitioning from bimodal to bilateral cochlear implant listening: speech recognition and localization in four individuals.

American journal of audiology·2013
Same author

Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants.

Ear and hearing·2013

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Oct 8, 2025

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages
06:04

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages

Published on: March 24, 2023

496

Evaluation of Automatic Directional Processing with Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Lisa G Potts1, Soo Jang2, Cory L Hillis2

  • 1Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology
|December 29, 2021
PubMed
Summary

Automatic directionality (SCAN) offers the best speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Individual variability exists, but SCAN is a suitable everyday processing option for improving hearing in noisy environments.

More Related Videos

Enhancing Electrode Location Assessment in Cochlear Implantation via Computed Tomography Image Fusion
03:58

Enhancing Electrode Location Assessment in Cochlear Implantation via Computed Tomography Image Fusion

Published on: January 17, 2025

568
Performing Intracochlear Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation
09:10

Performing Intracochlear Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation

Published on: March 8, 2022

4.6K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Oct 8, 2025

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages
06:04

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages

Published on: March 24, 2023

496
Enhancing Electrode Location Assessment in Cochlear Implantation via Computed Tomography Image Fusion
03:58

Enhancing Electrode Location Assessment in Cochlear Implantation via Computed Tomography Image Fusion

Published on: January 17, 2025

568
Performing Intracochlear Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation
09:10

Performing Intracochlear Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation

Published on: March 8, 2022

4.6K

Area of Science:

  • Audiology
  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Speech-Language Pathology

Background:

  • Cochlear implant (CI) recipients experience reduced speech recognition in noisy environments compared to quiet settings.
  • Directional microphone technology can enhance speech-in-noise performance by automatically adapting to acoustic scenes.
  • The efficacy of adaptive directionality in CI recipients, particularly with personalized signal processing, requires further investigation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate four directional microphone settings (automatic, adaptive, fixed, omni-directional) using CI recipients' preferred everyday signal processing.
  • To determine which directional option yields the best speech recognition in noise for CI users.
  • To inform clinical programming and improve CI recipients' ability to hear in challenging acoustic environments.

Main Methods:

  • Twenty-six unilateral and seven bilateral CI recipients participated, with a mean age of 66 years and 4 years of CI experience.
  • Speech-in-noise tests were conducted using HINT sentences in a restaurant noise environment with an eight-loudspeaker array.
  • Four directional options (SCAN, Beam, Zoom, Omni) were assessed with participants' usual signal processing settings active; data analyzed using mixed-model ANOVA.

Main Results:

  • Automatic directionality (SCAN) provided the best speech-in-noise performance, though not significantly superior to adaptive (Beam) directionality.
  • Omni-directional processing resulted in significantly poorer performance compared to all other directional settings.
  • While 16 participants performed best with SCAN, individual variability was high, with some excelling with other directional settings.

Conclusions:

  • Significant individual variability exists in CI recipients' optimal directional microphone preference.
  • Automatic directionality (SCAN) is a suitable and effective everyday signal processing option for CI recipients.
  • Further exploration of personalized directional strategies may enhance speech-in-noise outcomes for cochlear implant users.