Improving Cochlear Implant Performance in the Wind Through Spectral Masking Release: A Multi-microphone and Multichannel Strategy Objectives: Adopting the omnidirectional microphone (OMNI) mode and reducing low-frequency gain are the two most commonly used wind noise reduction strategies in hearing devices. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of these two strategies on cochlear implant users’ speech-understanding abilities and perceived sound quality in wind noise. We also examined the effectiveness of a new strategy that adopts the microphone mode with lower wind noise level in each frequency channel. Design: A behind-the-ear digital hearing aid with multiple microphone modes was used to record testing materials for cochlear implant participants. It was adjusted to have linear amplification, flat frequency response when worn on a Knowles Electronic Manikin for Acoustic Research to remove the head-related transfer function of the manikin and to mimic typical microphone characteristics of hearing devices. Recordings of wind noise samples and hearing-in-noise test sentences were made when the hearing aid was programmed to four microphone modes, namely (1) OMNI; (2) adaptive directional microphone (ADM); (3) ADM with low-frequency roll-off; and (4) a combination of omnidirectional and directional microphone (COMBO). Wind noise samples were recorded in an acoustically treated wind tunnel from 0° to 360° in 10° increment at a wind velocity of 4.5, 9.0, and 13.5 m/s when the hearing aid was worn on the manikin. Two wind noise samples recorded at 90° and 300° head angles at the wind velocity of 9.0 m/s were chosen to take advantage of the spectral masking release effects of COMBO. The samples were then mixed with the sentences recorded using identical settings. Cochlear implant participants listened to the speech-in-wind testing materials and they repeated the sentences and compared overall sound quality preferences of different microphone modes using a paired-comparison categorical rating paradigm. The participants also rated their preferences of wind-only samples. Results: COMBO yielded the highest speech recognition scores among the four microphone modes, and it was also preferred the most often, likely due to the reduction of spectral masking. The speech recognition scores generated using ADM with low-frequency roll-off were either equal to or lower than those obtained using ADM because gain reduction decreased not only the level of wind noise but also the low-frequency energy of speech. OMNI consistently yielded speech recognition scores lower than COMBO, and it was often rated as less preferable than other microphone modes, suggesting the conventional strategy to switch to the omnidirectional mode in the wind was undesirable. Conclusions: Neither adopting an OMNI nor reducing low-frequency gain generated higher speech recognition scores or higher sound quality ratings than COMBO. Adopting the microphone with lower wind noise level in different frequency channels can provide spectral masking release, and it is a more effective wind noise reduction strategy. The natural 6 dB/octave low-frequency roll-off of first-order directional microphones should be compensated when speech is present. Signal detection and decision rules for wind noise reduction applications are discussed in hearing devices with and without binaural transmission capability. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The author thanks Lance Nelson and Melissa Teske Dunn for data collection and Jens Balslev, Peter Nopp, Nick McKibben, and Drs. Ernst Aschbacher and Kaiboa Nie, and the staff at the Herrick Laboratories for technical support. Many thanks to Oticon Foundation and Med-El Corporation for providing funding to support this study. This study was funded by the Oticon Foundation and Med-El Corporation. The author was solely responsible for the design of the study procedures and the contents presented in this article. The author has a United States Patent (8942815) - Enhancing cochlear implnats with hearing aid signal processing technologies. The author has no conflicts of interest to declare. Received February 2, 2017; accepted May 27, 2019. Address for correspondence: King Chung, Department of Allied Health and Communicative Disorders, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. E-mail: kchung@niu.edu Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Improving Sensitivity of the Digits-In-Noise Test Using Antiphasic Stimuli Objectives: The digits-in-noise test (DIN) has become increasingly popular as a consumer-based method to screen for hearing loss. Current versions of all DINs either test ears monaurally or present identical stimuli binaurally (i.e., diotic noise and speech, NoSo). Unfortunately, presentation of identical stimuli to each ear inhibits detection of unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), and neither diotic nor monaural presentation sensitively detects conductive hearing loss (CHL). After an earlier finding of enhanced sensitivity in normally hearing listeners, this study tested the hypothesis that interaural antiphasic digit presentation (NoSπ) would improve sensitivity to hearing loss caused by unilateral or asymmetric SNHL, symmetric SNHL, or CHL. Design: This cross-sectional study recruited adults (18 to 84 years) with various levels of hearing based on a 4-frequency pure-tone average (PTA) at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. The study sample was comprised of listeners with normal hearing (n = 41; PTA ≤ 25 dB HL in both ears), symmetric SNHL (n = 57; PTA > 25 dB HL), unilateral or asymmetric SNHL (n = 24; PTA > 25 dB HL in the poorer ear), and CHL (n = 23; PTA > 25 dB HL and PTA air-bone gap ≥ 20 dB HL in the poorer ear). Antiphasic and diotic speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were compared using a repeated-measures design. Results: Antiphasic DIN was significantly more sensitive to all three forms of hearing loss than the diotic DIN. SRT test–retest reliability was high for all tests (intraclass correlation coefficient r > 0.89). Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for detection of hearing loss (>25 dB HL) was higher for antiphasic DIN (0.94) than for diotic DIN (0.77) presentation. After correcting for age, PTA of listeners with normal hearing or symmetric SNHL was more strongly correlated with antiphasic (rpartial[96] = 0.69) than diotic (rpartial = 0.54) SRTs. Slope of fitted regression lines predicting SRT from PTA was significantly steeper for antiphasic than diotic DIN. For listeners with normal hearing or CHL, antiphasic SRTs were more strongly correlated with PTA (rpartial[62] = 0.92) than diotic SRTs (rpartial[62] = 0.64). Slope of the regression line with PTA was also significantly steeper for antiphasic than diotic DIN. The severity of asymmetric hearing loss (poorer ear PTA) was unrelated to SRT. No effect of self-reported English competence on either antiphasic or diotic DIN among the mixed first-language participants was observed. Conclusions: Antiphasic digit presentation markedly improved the sensitivity of the DIN test to detect SNHL, either symmetric or asymmetric, while keeping test duration to a minimum by testing binaurally. In addition, the antiphasic DIN was able to detect CHL, a shortcoming of previous monaural or binaurally diotic DIN versions. The antiphasic DIN is thus a powerful tool for population-based screening. This enhanced functionality combined with smartphone delivery could make the antiphasic DIN suitable as a primary screen that is accessible to a large global audience. Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and text of this article on the journal’s Web site (www.ear-hearing.com). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The authors thank all the participants of this study, Steve Biko Academic Hospital, and all participating private practices for their assistance with data collection. The authors thank Li Lin for assistance with data analysis. This research was funded by the National Institute of Deafness and Communication Disorders of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number 5R21DC016241-02. Additional funding support was obtained from the National Research Foundation (Grant PR_CSRP190208414782). DWS, DRM, and HCM relationship with the hearX Group and hearZA includes equity, consulting, and potential royalties. DRM is supported by Cincinnati Children’s Research Foundation and by the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Received January 4, 2019; accepted June 4, 2019. Address for correspondence: Cas Smits, Amsterdam, UMC Vrije Universiteit, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ear and Hearing, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: c.smits@vumc.nl This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.