Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 13, 2026
06:54
Performing Repeated Intraoperative Impedance Telemetry Measurements during Cochlear Implantation
Published on: August 4, 2023
Continuous vs. Interrupted Multi-Talker Babble Background Noise: Impact on Speech Perception in Bimodal Cochlear
Courtney Kolberg1, Sarah O Holbert1, Madison K Graham2
1Division of Audiology, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA.
Journal of Clinical Medicine
|June 12, 2026
Summary
Continuous background noise, unlike interrupted noise, significantly improves speech perception for bimodal cochlear implant (CI) users. This finding suggests continuous noise is better for assessing CI candidacy and outcomes.
Area of Science:
- Audiology
- Neuroscience
- Biomedical Engineering
Background:
- Speech perception testing for cochlear implant (CI) users often uses interrupted background noise.
- Interrupted noise may not allow noise-reduction algorithms to activate effectively.
- This can hinder acclimatization and auditory stream segregation for hearing-impaired individuals.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare speech perception in bimodal CI users under continuous versus interrupted multi-talker babble (MTB) noise conditions.
- To evaluate the impact of different noise types on hearing aid program performance.
Main Methods:
- Speech perception was assessed in two groups of bimodal CI users.
- Group 1 used an automatic hearing aid program in quiet, continuous MTB, and interrupted MTB.
- Group 2 used two manual hearing aid programs in the same three environments.
Main Results:
- Group 1 showed significantly higher speech perception scores in continuous MTB (67%) compared to interrupted MTB (38%).
- Scores in quiet for Group 1 were 88%.
- Group 2 exhibited no significant mean differences between continuous and interrupted noise, but individual variability was noted.
Conclusions:
- Continuous multi-talker babble (MTB) noise provides a more realistic and effective measure of speech perception for bimodal cochlear implant (CI) users.
- Testing protocols for CI candidacy and post-operative evaluation should incorporate continuous noise.
- Future research may explore individual differences in response to noise conditions.
Related Concept Videos
01:10Interference: Path Lengths
Consider two sources of sound, that may or may not be in phase, emitting waves at a single frequency, and consider the frequencies to be the same.
Two special sources may be considered when they are in phase. This can be easily achieved by feeding the two sources from the same source. An example would be synchronizing the two speakers by feeding them with the same source, such as the sound waves produced by a tuning fork. This setup ensures that the two sources have the same frequency and are...
Two special sources may be considered when they are in phase. This can be easily achieved by feeding the two sources from the same source. An example would be synchronizing the two speakers by feeding them with the same source, such as the sound waves produced by a tuning fork. This setup ensures that the two sources have the same frequency and are...
01:31Hearing
When we hear a sound, our nervous system is detecting sound waves—pressure waves of mechanical energy traveling through a medium. The frequency of the wave is perceived as pitch, while the amplitude is perceived as loudness.
00:53Sound Waves: Interference
Sound waves can be modeled either as longitudinal waves, wherein the molecules of the medium oscillate around an equilibrium position, or as pressure waves. When two identical waves from the same source superimpose on each other, the combination of two crests or two troughs results in amplitude reinforcement known as constructive interference. If two identical waves, that are initially in phase, become out of phase because of different path lengths, the combination of crests with troughs...