Speech intelligibility in dual task with hearing aids and adaptive digital wireless microphone technology

  • Matthias Latzel Phonak AG, Stäfa, Switzerland
  • Kirsten C. Wagener Hörzentrum Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
  • Matthias Vormann Hörzentrum Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
  • Hanse Mülder Phonak Communications AG, Murten, Switzerland
Keywords: Dual Task, Speech Test, Remote Microphone, Ecological Validity, Near-field and far-field simultaneously, Dual Task Costs, Hearing Solution


Remote microphones (RMs) have been developed to support hearing aid users to understand distant talkers. A drawback of these systems is the deteriorated speech intelligibility in the near-field, as the hearing aids need to be in omnidirectional mode in combination with these RMs. This has changed with the introduction of a new hearing-aid technology developed specifically to support the user in the near-field when using a RM, by enabling directional microphones of the hearing aid. To verify the performance of this novel system, speech intelligibility tests were conducted using a dual-task paradigm. Primary task: Sentences of the female Oldenburg Matrix Test were presented continuously. The task of the subject was to mark the recognized name on a tablet. Secondary task: A speech recognition test with meaningful sentences (Göttinger Sentence Test, male voice) was carried out with the task to repeat the sentences. The primary-task stimuli were presented from a loudspeaker in the far-field and the secondary-task stimuli from a loudspeaker in the near-field (and vice versa), within a surrounding loudspeaker array playing restaurant noise. Results of 15 hearing-impaired subjects showed that the directional hearing-aid microphone delivered superior performance compared to the omni microphone. Benefits of the RM were confirmed for both primary and secondary tasks. For a higher ecological validity, the data were analyzed considering both tasks simultaneously. This analysis showed a positive effect of the directional hearing aid microphone.


Anderson, K.L., and Goldstein, H. (2004). “Speech perception benefits of FM and infrared devices to children with hearing aids in a typical classroom,” Lang. Speech Hear. Ser., 35, 169-184, doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2004/017)

Appleton, J., and König, G,.(2014). “Improvement in speech intelligibility and subjective benefit with binaural beamformer technology” Hearing Review, 21, 40-42.

Baquis, D. (2014). Assistive Listening Devices. Retrieved from National Institute of the Deaf.

Dillon, H. (2012). Hearing aids – A Comprehensive Text. New York: Boomerang Press and Thieme.

Johnson, C.D., Anderson, V., Boothroyd, A., Eiten, L., Gabbard, S.A., Lewis, D., and Thibodeau, L. (2011). Remote Microphone HearingAssistance Technologies for Children and Youth from Birth to 21 Years. American Academy of Audiology Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Jones, C., and Rakita L. (2016). “A powerful noise-fighting duo: Roger and Phonak directionality,” Phonak Field Study News. http://www.phonakpro.com/com/b2b/en/ evidence.html

Kim, J.S., and Kim, C.H. (2014). “A review of assistive listening device and digital wireless technology for hearing instruments” Korean J. Audiol., 18, 105-111. doi: 10.7874/kja.2014.18.3.105

Kollmeier, B., and Wesselkamp, M. (1997). “Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 102, 2412-2421. doi: 10.1121/1.419624

Latzel, M. (2013). “Compendium 4 - Adaptive Phonak Digital (APD)”, Phonak Compendium. http://www.phonakpro.com/com/b2b/en/evidence.html

Oberauer, K., Lange, E., and Engle, R.W. (2004). “Working memory capacity and resistance to interference,” J. Mem. Lang., 51, 80-96. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.003

Roeser, R.J. (1996). Roeser’s Audiology Desk Reference. New York, Stuttgart: Thieme, pp. 171.

Thibodeau, L. (2014). “Comparison of speech recognition with adaptive digital and FM wireless technology by listeners who use hearing aids,” Am. J. Audiol., 23, 201-210. doi: 10.1044/2014_AJA-13-0065

Wagener, K.C., Hochmuth, S., Ahrlich, M, Zokoll, M.A., and Kollmeier, B. (2014). “Der weibliche Oldenburger Satztest,” 17th annual conference of the DGA, Oldenburg, CD-Rom.

Wolfe, J., Schafer, E.C., Parkinson, A., John, A.B. Hudson, M., Wheeler, J., and Mucci, A. (2012). “Effects of input processing and type of personal FM systems on speech recognition performance of adults with cochlear implants,” Ear Hearing, 34, 52-62. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182611982

Wolfe, J., Morais, M., Schafer, E., Mills, E., Mülder, H.E., Goldbeck, F., Marquis, F., John, A., Hudson, M., Peters, B.R., and Lianos, L. (2013). “Evaluation of speech recognition of cochlear implant recipients using a personal digital adaptive radio frequency system,” J. Am. Acad. Audiol., 24, 714-724. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.14099
How to Cite
LatzelM., WagenerK., VormannM., & MülderH. (2018). Speech intelligibility in dual task with hearing aids and adaptive digital wireless microphone technology. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, 6, 383-390. Retrieved from https://proceedings.isaar.eu/index.php/isaarproc/article/view/2017-47
2017/6. Advances in hearing-instrument features and related effects