ArticleTrends in hearing
Beamforming and Single-Microphone Noise Reduction: Effects on Signal-to-Noise Ratio and Speech Recognition of Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users.
Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning Effects of the Dutch/Flemish Matrix Test for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users.Audiology & neuro-otology · 2026Article
- DNN-Based Noise Reduction Significantly Improves Bimodal Benefit in Background Noise for Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Do Different Types of Microphones Affect Listening Effort in Cochlear Implant Recipients? A Pupillometry Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The Benefit of Bimodal Hearing and Beamforming for Cochlear Implant Users.Audiology & neuro-otology · 2024Article
- Residual Hearing Does Not Influence the Effectiveness of Beamforming when Using a Cochlear Implant in Conjunction with Contralateral Routing of Signals.Audiology & neuro-otology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We have investigated the effectiveness of three noise-reduction algorithms, namely an adaptive monaural beamformer (MB), a fixed binaural beamformer (BB), and a single-microphone stationary-noise reduction algorithm (SNRA) by assessing the speech reception threshold (SRT) in a group of 15 bimodal cochlear implant users. Speech was presented frontally towards the listener and background noise was established as a homogeneous field of long-term speech-spectrum-shaped (LTSS) noise or 8-talker babble. We pursued four research questions, namely: whether the benefits of beamforming on the SRT differ between LTSS noise and 8-talker babble; whether BB is more effective than MB; whether SNRA improves the SRT in LTSS noise; and whether the SRT benefits of MB and BB are comparable to their improvement of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The results showed that MB and BB significantly improved SRTs by an average of 2.6 dB and 2.9 dB, respectively. These benefits did not statistically differ between noise types or between the two beamformers. By contrast, physical SNR improvements obtained with a manikin revealed substantially greater benefits of BB (6.6 dB) than MB (3.3 dB). SNRA did not significantly affect SRTs per se in omnidirectional microphone settings, nor in combination with MB and BB. We conclude that in the group of bimodal listeners tested, BB had no additional benefits on speech recognition over MB in homogeneous noise, despite the finding that BB had a substantial larger benefit on the SNR than MB. SNRA did not improve speech recognition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.