EP3944635B1 - Procédé de fonctionnement d'un système auditif, système auditif, appareil auditif - Google Patents

Procédé de fonctionnement d'un système auditif, système auditif, appareil auditif Download PDF

Info

Publication number
EP3944635B1
EP3944635B1 EP21179822.8A EP21179822A EP3944635B1 EP 3944635 B1 EP3944635 B1 EP 3944635B1 EP 21179822 A EP21179822 A EP 21179822A EP 3944635 B1 EP3944635 B1 EP 3944635B1
Authority
EP
European Patent Office
Prior art keywords
potency
algorithm
relevance
user
weights
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Active
Application number
EP21179822.8A
Other languages
German (de)
English (en)
Other versions
EP3944635C0 (fr
EP3944635A1 (fr
Inventor
Frank Beck
Stefan Aschoff
Stefan Petrausch
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Sivantos Pte Ltd
Original Assignee
Sivantos Pte Ltd
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Sivantos Pte Ltd filed Critical Sivantos Pte Ltd
Publication of EP3944635A1 publication Critical patent/EP3944635A1/fr
Application granted granted Critical
Publication of EP3944635C0 publication Critical patent/EP3944635C0/fr
Publication of EP3944635B1 publication Critical patent/EP3944635B1/fr
Active legal-status Critical Current
Anticipated expiration legal-status Critical

Links

Images

Classifications

    • H—ELECTRICITY
    • H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
    • H04R—LOUDSPEAKERS, MICROPHONES, GRAMOPHONE PICK-UPS OR LIKE ACOUSTIC ELECTROMECHANICAL TRANSDUCERS; DEAF-AID SETS; PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS
    • H04R25/00—Deaf-aid sets, i.e. electro-acoustic or electro-mechanical hearing aids; Electric tinnitus maskers providing an auditory perception
    • H04R25/50—Customised settings for obtaining desired overall acoustical characteristics
    • H04R25/505—Customised settings for obtaining desired overall acoustical characteristics using digital signal processing
    • H—ELECTRICITY
    • H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
    • H04R—LOUDSPEAKERS, MICROPHONES, GRAMOPHONE PICK-UPS OR LIKE ACOUSTIC ELECTROMECHANICAL TRANSDUCERS; DEAF-AID SETS; PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS
    • H04R25/00—Deaf-aid sets, i.e. electro-acoustic or electro-mechanical hearing aids; Electric tinnitus maskers providing an auditory perception
    • H—ELECTRICITY
    • H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
    • H04R—LOUDSPEAKERS, MICROPHONES, GRAMOPHONE PICK-UPS OR LIKE ACOUSTIC ELECTROMECHANICAL TRANSDUCERS; DEAF-AID SETS; PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS
    • H04R25/00—Deaf-aid sets, i.e. electro-acoustic or electro-mechanical hearing aids; Electric tinnitus maskers providing an auditory perception
    • H04R25/55—Deaf-aid sets, i.e. electro-acoustic or electro-mechanical hearing aids; Electric tinnitus maskers providing an auditory perception using an external connection, either wireless or wired
    • H04R25/554—Deaf-aid sets, i.e. electro-acoustic or electro-mechanical hearing aids; Electric tinnitus maskers providing an auditory perception using an external connection, either wireless or wired using a wireless connection, e.g. between microphone and amplifier or using Tcoils
    • H—ELECTRICITY
    • H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
    • H04R—LOUDSPEAKERS, MICROPHONES, GRAMOPHONE PICK-UPS OR LIKE ACOUSTIC ELECTROMECHANICAL TRANSDUCERS; DEAF-AID SETS; PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS
    • H04R2225/00—Details of deaf aids covered by H04R25/00, not provided for in any of its subgroups
    • H04R2225/41—Detection or adaptation of hearing aid parameters or programs to listening situation, e.g. pub, forest
    • H—ELECTRICITY
    • H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
    • H04R—LOUDSPEAKERS, MICROPHONES, GRAMOPHONE PICK-UPS OR LIKE ACOUSTIC ELECTROMECHANICAL TRANSDUCERS; DEAF-AID SETS; PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS
    • H04R2225/00—Details of deaf aids covered by H04R25/00, not provided for in any of its subgroups
    • H04R2225/43—Signal processing in hearing aids to enhance the speech intelligibility
    • H—ELECTRICITY
    • H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
    • H04R—LOUDSPEAKERS, MICROPHONES, GRAMOPHONE PICK-UPS OR LIKE ACOUSTIC ELECTROMECHANICAL TRANSDUCERS; DEAF-AID SETS; PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS
    • H04R2225/00—Details of deaf aids covered by H04R25/00, not provided for in any of its subgroups
    • H04R2225/49—Reducing the effects of electromagnetic noise on the functioning of hearing aids, by, e.g. shielding, signal processing adaptation, selective (de)activation of electronic parts in hearing aid
    • H—ELECTRICITY
    • H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
    • H04R—LOUDSPEAKERS, MICROPHONES, GRAMOPHONE PICK-UPS OR LIKE ACOUSTIC ELECTROMECHANICAL TRANSDUCERS; DEAF-AID SETS; PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS
    • H04R25/00—Deaf-aid sets, i.e. electro-acoustic or electro-mechanical hearing aids; Electric tinnitus maskers providing an auditory perception
    • H04R25/70—Adaptation of deaf aid to hearing loss, e.g. initial electronic fitting

Definitions

  • the invention relates to a method for operating a hearing system and a hearing system.
  • a hearing system has a hearing aid that is worn by a user on or in the ear.
  • the hearing device picks up noises from the environment using one or more microphones and thereby generates an electrical input signal, which is converted back into noise via a receiver of the hearing device and is output to the user.
  • the electrical input signal is processed into an electrical output signal for the listener by means of signal processing in order to adapt the listening experience and the perception of the sounds to the personal needs of the user.
  • a hearing aid is typically used to care for a hearing-impaired user, i.e. to compensate for the user's hearing deficit.
  • the signal processing then processes the electrical input signals in such a way that the hearing deficit is compensated for.
  • a previously determined audiogram of the user is used for this purpose, for example.
  • the signal processing uses various algorithms depending on the situation when processing the input signal.
  • a respective algorithm is then used for the specific modification of a part of the input signal, for example in order to emphasize or suppress it.
  • the relevant part represents a signal feature in the input signal, which in this way is specifically processed by an associated algorithm.
  • a signal feature is also referred to as a signal feature, or simply as a characteristic or feature for short.
  • algorithms are background noise suppression, directionality, ie directivity of the microphones, frequency compression, voice emphasis and the like.
  • Examples of associated signal features are noise in the case of noise reduction, a noise from a certain direction in the case of directionality, the presence of certain frequency components in the case of frequency compression and the presence of a foreign voice in the case of voice emphasis.
  • the processing using the algorithms may not be optimal or at least not subjectively satisfactory for a user of the hearing device. Describing dissatisfaction with the sound output by the user himself is often difficult, especially since the user typically has no detailed knowledge of how the hearing aid works. A description by the user for the purpose of determining the underlying problem by specialist personnel or using a database is typically difficult, since the user often lacks the terms for an unambiguous and clear description.
  • An electronic device is configured to transmit a service request to a server upon detection of an unsatisfactorily processed output signal. This is configured to transmit the service request and one or more initial fitting parameters of the hearing device, audiograms and/or settings of the hearing device to a computer program. This is configured to process the service request and provide a response thereto based at least in part on the one or more initial fitting parameters of the hearing aid, audiograms and/or settings of the hearing aid, and the response via the server and via the electronic device transmit the hearing aid.
  • an object of the invention to improve the operation of a hearing system with a hearing device and specifically the operation of a hearing device.
  • the hearing aid should be set as optimally as possible for sound output.
  • an improved method is to be specified, as well as a hearing system.
  • a core concept of the invention is in particular the use of undifferentiated negative feedback from a user of a hearing device for improved adjustment of the hearing device, specifically for adjusting its algorithms.
  • the method is used to operate a hearing system.
  • the hearing system has a hearing device which is designed to modify an input signal for sound output to a user and to use a number of algorithms with a respective effective strength for this purpose, so that a respective algorithm with a current effective strength is used in a current situation.
  • the hearing device preferably has at least one microphone which picks up sound from the environment and generates an electrical input signal. This is fed to a signal processor of the hearing aid for processing, ie for modification.
  • the signal processing is preferably part of a control unit of the hearing device.
  • the hearing device is preferably used to supply a hearing-impaired user.
  • the processing takes place in particular on the basis of an audiogram of the user, which is assigned to the hearing device, so that an individual hearing deficit of the user is compensated for.
  • the audiogram is usually taken beforehand, but this is not part of the procedure described here.
  • the result of the signal processing is an electrical output signal, which is then converted back into sound via a receiver of the hearing aid and is output to the user, so that sound is output.
  • the hearing device is preferably a binaural hearing device, with two individual devices, each of which has at least one microphone and have a receiver and which are worn by the user on different sides of the head, namely once on or in the left ear and once on or in the right ear.
  • the signal processing has several algorithms, which are preferably used depending on the current situation, i.e. situation-dependent. In principle, several algorithms can also be used simultaneously.
  • a situation is also referred to as a hearing situation and is characterized in particular by background noise in the user's surroundings and at a given time. Examples of a situation are speech, conversation, voices in the background, music, noise or various other disturbing noises such as ringing, clinking, whistling and the like, silence, reverberation, or combinations thereof.
  • a respective algorithm is implemented as hardware or software in the signal processing or a combination thereof.
  • each algorithm has an adjustable potency for use in a particular situation.
  • the strength of the effect can be switched between at least two values, e.g. on or off, but preferably within a range of values, e.g. a value from 0 to 5, with the algorithm being inactive at 0, i.e. having no effect, and with an increasing value one stronger effect.
  • the level of effectiveness that is used in which situation for a particular algorithm is in particular predefined, e.g. as part of a fitting session or by standard values that have been set during production, or the like.
  • One goal of the present method is in particular to find more optimal effectiveness of the algorithms, in particular by using feedback from the user, and thereby to improve the sound output for the user.
  • each algorithm is assigned at least one signal feature and the current effectiveness of a respective algorithm is set depending on the situation by being set depending on a strength of the signal feature in the input signal in the current situation.
  • the current potency for a given situation is in a memory of the hearing aid and is retrieved for the application of the algorithm. Accordingly, the processing by the signal processor takes place depending on the respective strength of certain signal features in the input signal.
  • the hearing device then reacts to the signal features by using appropriate algorithms with a predetermined effective strength, which is then correspondingly a current effective strength in a current situation.
  • the signal processing works as follows: predefined signal features are extracted from the input signal, i.e. the input signal is searched for specific parts, i.e. signal features, and if any are present, these are recognized. Examples of signal features have already been mentioned at the outset. At least one signal feature is assigned to each algorithm, so that if the signal feature is present in the input signal, the associated algorithm is applied in order to specifically process the corresponding signal feature and thereby, for example, emphasize or suppress it compared to the rest of the input signal.
  • the strength of action provided for this purpose in a current situation, with which the algorithm is applied, is referred to as the current strength of action and is preferably dependent on the strength of the signal feature.
  • the current potency may not be optimal.
  • the control unit of the hearing aid has an extraction unit and a combination unit in addition to the signal processing.
  • the input signal is routed along a main signal path to the combination unit and then to the output to the listener.
  • the input signal is routed along a first secondary signal path, which branches off from the main signal path, to the extraction unit for the extraction of signal features.
  • the extraction unit recognizes any signal features that may be present in the input signal and identifies them so that they can be specifically processed by the signal processing.
  • the input signal is routed along a second secondary signal path, which also branches off from the main signal path, for signal processing.
  • Signal processing is also connected to the extraction unit, so information with regard to the signal features are transmitted from the extraction unit to the signal processing and the signal processing can be controlled and is also controlled in such a way that the recognized signal features are processed in a targeted manner.
  • the signal processing uses that algorithm which is assigned to a respective signal feature.
  • the signal processing outputs a processed signal as an output signal, which is then fed to the combining unit and mixed thereby with the input signal from the main path, ie the processed signal is applied to the input signal. This then results in an overall output signal, which is then output via the earpiece.
  • the hearing system is designed to repeatedly receive a message from the user in such a way that the user is dissatisfied with the sound output in the current situation.
  • Receiving, ie accepting, a message takes place in particular in a first step of the method.
  • the dissatisfaction does not have to be further explained or specified by the user, so that the report is undifferentiated negative feedback, ie a complaint or feedback that the current setting of the hearing aid is perceived as insufficient, without specifying why or In which way.
  • a description or characterization of the alleged inadequacies in the sound output is not required from the user.
  • the hearing system expediently has an input element, for example a switch, a button or a microphone for voice input.
  • the input element is part of the hearing device or part of an additional device of the hearing system.
  • a suitable additional device is in particular a mobile terminal device, eg a smartphone. If present, the additional device is part of the hearing system, but not part of the hearing aid.
  • the hearing system also has a database, which contains a number of weights for each algorithm, for evaluating a change in the potency, i.e. for evaluating a possible change in the value of the potency.
  • a respective weight therefore links two potencies with one another, more precisely two values for the potency of an algorithm, namely the current potency with a possible future potency, or in other words, an initial potency or actual potency with a target potency or potential potency.
  • the number of weights is therefore dependent on the number of values for the potency. For example, an algorithm with an effective strength that can be set in steps of 1 in the range from 0 to 5 then results in 36 weights. In other words, each pair of values in the potency range is assigned a weight.
  • a respective weight evaluates the change from the starting potency to one of the possible target potencies. If the target potency is equal to the base potency, the weight evaluates maintaining that value accordingly. Accordingly, for a single initial potency value, there are as many weights as there are possible potency values. These weights for a particular potency form a weight profile or vector of that potency. Several weight profiles then form a two-dimensional weight matrix.
  • a respective weight is in particular a measure of the expected improvement in the sound output if the current level of effectiveness is maintained or a different level of effectiveness is used, so that the weights are suitable for evaluating a change in the level of effectiveness.
  • the evaluation may show that a change makes sense or that it makes more sense to keep it. Since a respective weight thus indicates how desirable it is to use the target potency instead of the initial potency, the weights are also referred to as preferences, a weight profile as a preference profile and the weight matrix as a preference matrix.
  • each of the algorithms is evaluated by determining a case-by-case relevance using the weights for each of the algorithms, to estimate the impact of a change in potency in the current situation.
  • This evaluation of the algorithms takes place in a second step of the method.
  • the user's message signals that the current setting, which includes the currently used potencies, is not satisfactory for the user, i.e. the user is dissatisfied with one or more of the currently selected potencies for the algorithms. Since the information content of the report does not go beyond mere dissatisfaction and the user does not have to provide any more precise information on the faulty or desired signal processing, it is initially unclear to which algorithms and effectiveness the dissatisfaction and the report refer.
  • the stronger the weights recommend a different potency instead of the current potency the more the corresponding algorithm seems to be responsible for the user's dissatisfaction and the more relevant this algorithm is therefore.
  • the individual case relevance is thus in particular a measure of the probability with which the associated algorithm is not set optimally for the user.
  • the evaluation of the algorithms is therefore in particular an estimation of the respective relevance based on the weights.
  • the individual case relevance does not necessarily have to be calculated as part of the procedure. Since the individual case relevance is preferably only dependent on the previously known weights, it is possible and advantageous to use all possible individual case relevance calculated in advance and then looked up as needed during the process. However, if the weights are updated, it makes sense to recalculate the individual case relevance as well. The updating of the weights, which is optional per se, is described in detail further below.
  • the relevance values are compared with each other, on the basis of which the most relevant algorithm is selected and then an adjusted potency is used for this by adapting the current potency of the algorithm to a recommended potency , which is determined using the weights.
  • this potency which is stored for a situation as the current potency, e.g. in the memory of the hearing aid, is replaced by a new, current potency.
  • the relevance value is determined in particular as part of the second method step.
  • the adjustment of the current potency and the use of the adjusted potency take place in a fourth step of the method.
  • the recommended potency is preferably determined in the second method step mentioned above, since the weights are also used here.
  • the recommended potency is determined in the fourth procedural step or in an additional, separate procedural step. How the recommended potency is specifically determined is of secondary importance for the time being. The only important thing is that it is based on the weights, since they advantageously encode a recommendation for a specific potency.
  • the comparison of the various relevance values, also referred to as the overall ranking, and the selection of the most relevant algorithm take place in a third step of the method.
  • a corresponding number of reports are received, because for each message, exactly one case relevance is usually determined for a respective algorithm.
  • a case-by-case relevance is determined for each algorithm.
  • These will be across multiple messages is collected and a relevance value is calculated for each algorithm from the individual case relevance.
  • the relevance values of the various algorithms are then compared, in particular in an overall ranking, in order to find the algorithm that is most relevant and therefore appears to be the most important for the user. In this way, the algorithm that is particularly important to the user is identified without the user having to provide explicit information.
  • the invention is initially based on the assumption that—as already indicated—a user would typically be overwhelmed by specifying exactly how the signal processing should work and which part of the processing is unsatisfactory, let alone how the setting of the hearing aid should be changed.
  • the typical user lacks the vocabulary for this, on the other hand, the knowledge about the effects and possibilities of using certain algorithms with a certain effectiveness in certain situations.
  • a new user of a hearing device in particular often lacks the ability to verbalize his or her dissatisfaction with the sound output and the resulting hearing impression in such a way that suitable measures for changing the effective strengths can be derived from this.
  • even specialist staff for example a so-called hearing care professional, or HCP for short, may have to ask questions in order to arrive at a result. Finding an improved setting is therefore correspondingly difficult.
  • the present method is significantly less complex and correspondingly simpler.
  • the hearing system can report this to the hearing system via a simple and unspecific message, for example by simply pressing a button. It is then up to the hearing system to use a number of such messages to draw a conclusion as to what the messages probably relate to and then to determine and, in particular, to make suitable changes to the effectiveness of the algorithms. Therefore, based on several reports, i.e. based on multiple answers, the hearing system draws a suitable conclusion as to which processing of which signal characteristics is the cause of the user's dissatisfaction and which effective strength or strengths should be set in order to prevent further dissatisfaction on the part of the user in the future to avoid. By determining and in particular also using a suitable setting, the user is then better prepared for similar or identical situations in the future, and the operation of the hearing system and especially the hearing device is improved.
  • the method advantageously takes into account that different signal features are typically evaluated subjectively and therefore fundamentally differently by different users in terms of their usefulness or disruptive influence, so that it is therefore subjective which algorithm is optimally used with which effectiveness.
  • the method also takes into account that the user's environment is typically not constant, but that different signal features are present to different degrees in different situations in which the user makes a report. In a given situation, for example within a certain room, the immediate acoustic environment is different Users not necessarily the same.
  • a single person in a fast-food restaurant would like to follow a video that is being shown on a screen with the associated sound and is disturbed by children's voices at the next table. Conversely, a father at the next table would like to hear and understand the language of his children and is more likely to be disturbed by the video.
  • a group of people are seated on a park bench and all but one person are engaged in lively conversation. The individual, on the other hand, has become engrossed in a novel and does not want to take part in the conversation, but would like to be aware when someone speaks to them.
  • the method advantageously also takes into account that different users sometimes also have different preferences with regard to the use of individual algorithms. This often also depends on the hearing deficit of the user, for example it has been observed that users with different degrees of hearing loss reject or accept certain algorithms depending on the severity of the hearing loss.
  • the core idea of the present method is in particular, based on several reports from the user, an evaluation, also referred to as weighting or ranking, of the algorithms and thereby identifying the most relevant algorithm, ie the algorithm whose change is most likely to lead to improved operation and thus to a more satisfactory sound output.
  • the individual case relevance which are determined for each message for each algorithm, combined to form a relevance value of a respective algorithm and the respective algorithm is compared with the other algorithms based on the relevance value.
  • the algorithm which has the highest relevance value is preferably selected as the most relevant algorithm.
  • the case-by-case relevance is, in particular, an estimate of how likely it is that a corresponding different potency would have led to a better result and thereby possibly prevented a report.
  • a respective individual case relevance is preferably all the greater, the more likely it is that a different effective strength would have led to a sound output that was satisfactory for the user.
  • the database is preferably designed in such a way that the strength of the signal feature, which is assigned to a respective algorithm, is taken into account when determining the individual case relevance and the recommended effectiveness.
  • the strength of a signal feature is also referred to as signal strength.
  • the strength of the respective signal feature is preferably measured anyway in order to control the signal processing, as already described above, and to set the strengths of the algorithms depending on the situation.
  • one or more signal features are now expediently extracted from the input signal in the event of a message and their respective strength is determined in order to carry out an improved evaluation of the algorithms.
  • the database suitably contains a number of weights for different strengths of the signal feature for each algorithm, in each case for evaluating a change in the effective strength in the strength determined.
  • the strength is mapped to a strength range, for example from 0 to 5, where 0 means that the signal feature is not present and the strength of the signal feature increases with increasing value.
  • the weight matrix for a particular algorithm is therefore not just two-dimensional, but three-dimensional, because a third dimension for the signal strength is now added to the two dimensions of the initial potency and the target potency. The number of weights is also increased accordingly.
  • An individual algorithm is evaluated, ie its individual case relevance is determined now depending on the strength, which is determined in the current situation for the signal feature, which is assigned to the algorithm.
  • the two-dimensional weight matrix for a strength 0 of a respective signal feature i.e. if the signal feature is not included in the input signal, is an identity matrix, so that the corresponding weights indicate that in the case of the absence of the signal feature it is recommended to keep the current potency.
  • the strengths of the signal features of the current situation are conveniently measured and preferably stored. This takes place, for example, during the extraction of the signal features in the extraction unit.
  • the signal characteristics and their strengths describe the current situation, especially in the temporal and spatial vicinity of the report, i.e. the signal characteristics characterize the environment at the time of the report or in a specific time window around the time of the report.
  • the strength of a respective signal feature is preferably determined in a period of at most 10 s before the message until the time of the message.
  • the signal features are continuously extracted and their respective strengths are temporarily stored and then used in a report to query the database.
  • "Spatial proximity" means in particular "within earshot”.
  • a suitable algorithm is background noise suppression for suppressing background noise, for example machine or engine noise.
  • Such interference noises for example, which can be recognized on the basis of their temporal and/or spectral form, serve as a signal feature.
  • Another suitable algorithm is wind noise suppression for suppressing wind noise. This works similar to noise suppression, for example.
  • Microphone noise for example, serves as a signal feature.
  • Another similar algorithm is feedback suppression for suppressing feedback.
  • Another algorithm is a so-called sound smoothing, for suppressing impulses, ie temporally short sound signals, eg a spoon hitting a coffee cup or the clattering of crockery.
  • Another algorithm is directionality, ie directivity of the hearing aid microphones, to emphasize sound from a specific direction. Depending on the current situation, a directionality offers certain advantages. If the hearing aid is to play music in a music situation, the directionality is expediently deactivated, ie omnidirectional operation of the hearing aid is set, whereas in the presence of speech, i.e. in a speech situation, the directionality is activated, so that sound signals from the front are expediently opposed to sound signals from other directions be highlighted since a relevant speaker is typically in front of the user.
  • the directionality is also dynamically adjusted in order to more efficiently suppress other sound sources that are not in front but are still loud compared to the sound source in front of the user.
  • Foreign language for example, is used as a signal feature, the presence of which is recognized.
  • Another algorithm is a compression, more precisely a frequency compression, in which in particular high-frequency components in the input signal are shifted towards lower frequencies in order to enable a user with a hearing deficit in the high-frequency range to nevertheless perceive these frequencies. Since, for example, fricatives are strongly represented in the high-frequency range, this algorithm helps with speech understanding. Speech in general or, specifically, a high-frequency speech component, for example the presence of fricatives, serves as a signal feature.
  • Another algorithm uses speech recognition, also known as voice activity detection, to emphasize speech. The typical syllable repetition frequency of 4 Hz, for example, serves as a signal feature.
  • a language-relevant frequency range is in particular 250 Hz to 5 kHz.
  • a respective algorithm preferably acts selectively on the associated signal feature and leaves other parts of the input signal as unchanged as possible.
  • a respective signal feature is preferably amplified by the associated algorithm (e.g. speech is then amplified during speech recognition), added (e.g. during compression, more precisely frequency compression, a signal is added in the low-frequency frequency range), reduced (e.g. during noise suppression, the noise is reduced) , or eliminated (e.g. feedback suppression completely removes or prevents feedback).
  • a respective weight indicates which proportion of users in a reference group prefers the associated change.
  • a respective weight directly indicates a number of users or the weights are also normalized.
  • a respective weight is thus generated in particular by corresponding tests and recordings in connection with other users of hearing aids. For example, a group of test subjects and/or experienced hearing aid users is observed and their behavior, for example manual switching of the effective strength in certain situations, is recorded and stored as weights.
  • a respective weighting matrix then contains those proportions of users in the reference group who have switched from an initial potency to a specific target potency (or possibly have retained the initial potency), particularly given a specific strength of a specific signal feature.
  • the weights thus represent empirical data and each weight is formed from one or more data points.
  • a single data point represents, for example, a single change in the potency in a single situation by a single user.
  • a message is looked up in the database to see which strengths of action are preferred by the reference group for a particular algorithm if the extracted signal characteristics are present and are therefore, so to speak, recommended. Based on the recorded behavior of other users, the individual case relevance and a recommended potency can be determined for another user.
  • the mentioned reference group comprises only those users who are similar to the user, in particular those users for whom a similar audiogram was determined as for the user.
  • weights are used that result if only the behavior of similar users is taken into account.
  • data points that can be traced back to similar users are taken into account.
  • the similarity of their audiograms and/or other individual characteristics, e.g. age, gender, type of hearing deficit and the like preferably serves as a benchmark for the similarity of the user with the users of the reference group and their selection. It is assumed that similar users also have similar preferences and needs with regard to the operation of the hearing device. This applies in particular to users with a similar hearing deficit, which can be checked particularly easily using the audiograms. In this way, the total amount of data in the database is reduced individually for each user in such a way that particularly relevant weights result and the assessment in connection with determining the individual case relevance is significantly more accurate.
  • weights are determined by interpolation or extrapolation of weights determined in some other way.
  • the weights have been set by those skilled in the art, e.g., HCPs.
  • it is also suitable to start with simply estimating the weights, preferably in combination with ongoing updating.
  • the problem initially arises that weights must also be available on day 0, so that a simple estimate by experts with the appropriate expertise and/or a special test series with a few, selected users, to the initial Population of the database with weights are beneficial.
  • an interpolation and/or extrapolation of the weights is also advantageous.
  • the recommended potency is calculated from the weights, specifically each time a report is received or once in advance.
  • the previous statements on the individual case relevance also apply to the calculation of the recommended potency.
  • the recommended potency is preferably calculated from the weights by means of a statistical evaluation, preferably an averaging or a median value formation.
  • the weights of the weight profile for the current potency are used here. Based on a three-dimensional weight matrix, depending on the strength of the signal feature of the associated algorithm and depending on the current potency, the corresponding weight profile is selected, which contains the various weights for a selection of a respective target potency for this strength and this potency as the initial potency. These weights are then used to calculate which potency is recommended, e.g. by averaging or median value formation.
  • the calculated, recommended potency can basically match the current potency, but then the associated algorithm will be of little relevance, since there is agreement, e.g. with the underlying reference group. However, if there is a difference between the recommended and current potency, it can be assumed that a switch to the recommended potency would lead to an improvement in the current situation.
  • the recommended potency is a value derived from the database, which includes the experiences of other users and/or the assumptions and recommendations of experts.
  • the individual case relevance is a parameter for evaluating an algorithm, ie for assessing the relevance of the algorithm in the current situation for which the report was made.
  • a respective individual case relevance is calculated using the weights that are stored in the database and in which, in particular, recommendations and/or experiences of other users and/or experts are encoded.
  • a respective individual case relevance is calculated as a function of a potency difference, which is the difference between the current potency and the recommended potency.
  • the recommended potency is also determined, preferably as already described above. As already indicated there, it can be assumed that if there is a greater difference between the current and recommended potency, changing the potency of the associated algorithm leads to a particularly strong improvement in the sound output, since the current potency differs greatly from the potency suggested by the weights and thus from others Users and / or experts preferred, ie then also recommended potency deviates.
  • the amount of the difference is formed so that, regardless of whether the recommended potency is above or below the current potency, the greater the difference, the greater the individual case relevance.
  • a respective individual case relevance is calculated depending on a change recommendation, which is a measure of the sum of the weights for changing to a different potency on the one hand compared to the weight for maintaining the current potency on the other.
  • the individual relevance depends on how strongly the weights recommend switching to a different potency versus staying at the current potency.
  • the change recommendation is preferably standardized.
  • a change recommendation a difference is formed from the sum of the weights for changing to a different potency and the weight for maintaining the current potency. The weights of the weight profile for the current situation and the current potency are used. For normalization, this difference becomes the sum of all
  • a respective individual case relevance is calculated as a function of a spread for the current potency.
  • the spread is in particular a spread for the target potency.
  • the spread indicates how much the weights are focused on a single potency.
  • the spread is a variance of the target potencies, with each target potency being considered according to its weight, because the weight indicates how often that target potency is preferred compared to the other target potencies.
  • This is particularly illustrative in the case where the weights simply indicate a number of users, because then a weight for a specific data pair of initial potency and target potency simply gives the number of data points for this data pair.
  • These data points are then evaluated statistically, e.g. by calculating their variance as a measure of scatter as described, with the initial potency then being the same for each data point in order to only consider a specific weight profile, namely that of the current potency.
  • a combination of several calculation methods is particularly preferred, so that the individual case relevance combines diverse concepts.
  • the relevance value of a respective algorithm is preferably calculated by means of a statistical evaluation, preferably a median value formation, from the individual case relevance of this algorithm, ie in particular analogously to the recommended potency described above.
  • a statistical evaluation preferably a median value formation
  • the relevance value is preferably recalculated for each message and is thereby advantageously continuously updated, ie in particular that the relevance value is determined iteratively overall.
  • weights in the database contain the appropriately encoded information that in the case of the signal feature "sound of rattling dishes" or "impulse”, most users prefer sound smoothing, so that the effectiveness of the sound smoothing is adjusted accordingly for the guest after repeated notification, presumably in the present case elevated.
  • the weights contain the information that in the case of the signal feature "noise”, which is generated by the coffee grinder, most users prefer noise suppression, so that the effectiveness of the noise suppression is adjusted accordingly for the employee after repeated reports, in this case probably increased .
  • the aforementioned example is only one of many conceivable and possible constellations and serves primarily to illustrate the mode of action of the method.
  • the current potency is the most relevant Algorithm only adapted to the recommended potency if the relevance value of the most relevant algorithm differs by at least a minimum value from the relevance values of the other algorithms. Accordingly, it is awaited until a differentiation defined as sufficient above the minimum value is achieved and one of the algorithms is sufficiently reliably discriminated against the other algorithms.
  • the first, the second and the third method step are therefore expediently carried out several times.
  • the third method step is then followed by a test step in which compliance with the minimum value is checked, and if this is positive, the fourth method step is carried out.
  • the minimum value is in particular a minimum required difference between the highest relevance value and the next highest relevance value.
  • the weights in the database are expediently updated depending on the adjusted potency, and this adjusted potency is thus taken into account from now on when determining an individual case relevance and a recommended potency.
  • the database is thus advantageously continuously updated.
  • the findings from the application of the method for a single user thus also benefit other users whose hearing systems also use the database.
  • the adjusted potency as a target potency in combination with the original, current potency in the associated current situation corresponds to the coordinates of a data point in the weight matrix, whose associated weight is now increased, since after adjusting the potency for the user, this adjustment can now be assumed to be advisable and also accepted. Equivalently, the other weights can also be reduced. Further use of the database by the user's or another user's hearing system then uses the updated weights. In this respect, the database represents a continuously updated or even a learning system.
  • the recommended potency is simply used as the adjusted potency.
  • an intermediate value is formed, for example the mean of the current and recommended potency, in order to achieve an adjustment to the recommended potency.
  • the adjusted potency is preferably used from then on as the new, current potency, so that the adjusted potency is automatically used if the current situation occurs again.
  • the adjusted potency is therefore set directly by the hearing system and now represents the potency that will be used in the future if a corresponding situation arises. If a message is nevertheless sent again, the process is continued as already described in order to obtain a further adjustment of the same or a different algorithm.
  • the adjusted potency is first suggested to the user in a test mode and only used as the new current potency after confirmation by the user.
  • the test mode is used for listening, so to speak.
  • the user is thus given the opportunity to test the adjusted potency in advance and then either accept or reject it. This is made possible via appropriate input elements, e.g. on the hearing aid or on an additional device. Only when the adjusted potency in the test mode has been accepted by the user through a corresponding input is the adjusted potency actually used and stored as the new current potency, as already described, and the weights in the database are then preferably updated.
  • the weights in the database are also updated depending on the experimental potency and this is taken into account from now on when determining an individual case relevance and a recommended potency.
  • the experimental potency is only used to update the weights when at least one or a minimum number of other users have also accepted the corresponding adjustment.
  • the experimental potency is intentionally chosen to deviate from the recommended potency to avoid narrowing of the previous data in the database. For example, the experimental potency is higher or lower than the recommended potency, or a random value.
  • the experimental potency is preferably suggested for the most relevant algorithm, but alternatively it is also advantageous to suggest an experimental potency for another algorithm, i.e. to adapt the potency for another algorithm instead of the actually most relevant algorithm. A combination is also useful.
  • an experimental potency is only offered to certain users, for example those users who have explicitly declared their willingness to do so in advance. Such users are also referred to as experimental users.
  • a hearing system or hearing aid according to the invention is designed to carry out a method as described above.
  • the hearing system or hearing device preferably has a control unit, also referred to as a controller.
  • the control unit the method is implemented in particular in terms of programming or circuitry, or a combination thereof.
  • the control unit is designed as a microprocessor or as an ASIC or as a combination thereof.
  • the control unit can also be used on different devices of the hearing system and is not necessarily identical to the already mentioned control unit of the hearing aid. In principle, the method steps described above can be distributed to different devices as desired.
  • the hearing system includes at least one hearing aid and a database as described above.
  • the hearing aid is connected to the database for data exchange via a data connection, e.g. via the Internet.
  • the database is expediently part of a server, which is correspondingly part of the hearing system.
  • the additional device serves as an intermediary between the hearing aid and the server and for their connection for the purpose of data exchange.
  • the hearing aid and the additional device are preferably connected via a Bluetooth connection for data exchange, while the additional device and the database are preferably connected via the Internet.
  • other data connections and combinations of data connections are fundamentally conceivable and also suitable.
  • An embodiment is also suitable in which the database is part of the additional device or even of the hearing device, so that the hearing system can also do without a server.
  • the embodiment described with an additional device and server is particularly preferred.
  • the individual case relevance is preferably calculated on the server and thus advantageously centrally, so that the calculation can be updated easily, for example by the manufacturer of the hearing device, who expediently also operates the server.
  • the relevance values are preferably calculated on the additional device or on the hearing aid, ie close to the user.
  • the calculation of the individual case relevance initially depends only on the weights and is therefore user-dependent and can also be carried out in advance. However, the calculation of the relevance values depends on the reports by the user and is also dependent on the current situations experienced by the user and is therefore individual. By calculating the relevance values on the additional device or This individual data does not have to be transmitted to the hearing aid and not processed centrally, which would be correspondingly complex.
  • a hearing system 2 which has a hearing aid 4 and an additional device 6 and a server 8 with a database 10.
  • the hearing aid 4 is shown schematically in 2 shown.
  • the hearing device 2 is designed to modify an input signal 12 for sound output to a user who is not explicitly shown and to use a number of algorithms 14 with a respective effective strength W for this purpose, so that in a current situation a respective algorithm 14 with a current effective strength aW is used.
  • the hearing device 4 shown has at least one microphone 16 which picks up sound from the environment and generates the electrical input signal 12 . This is fed to a signal processor 18 of the hearing aid 4 for processing, ie for modification.
  • the signal processing 18 is part of a control unit 20 of the hearing device 4.
  • the hearing device 4 is used here to supply a hearing-impaired user.
  • the processing is based on an audiogram of the user, which is assigned to the hearing aid 4, so that an individual hearing deficit of the user is compensated.
  • the signal processing 18 gives an electrical result as a result Output signal 22, which is then converted back into sound via an earpiece 24 of the hearing aid 4 and is output to the user, so that sound is output.
  • the hearing aid 4 shown is a binaural hearing aid 4, with two individual devices, each of which has at least one microphone 16 and a receiver 24 and which the user wears on different sides of the head. 2 only shows one of the individual devices in simplified form.
  • the signal processing 18 has a number of algorithms 14 which are used depending on the current situation, i.e. depending on the situation, with a number of algorithms 14 also being able to be used at the same time.
  • each algorithm 14 has an adjustable effectiveness W for use in a particular situation.
  • the effectiveness W is, for example, a value from 0 to 5, with the algorithm 14 being inactive at 0, i.e. developing no effect, and developing a stronger effect as the value increases.
  • Which effective strength W is used in which situation for a respective algorithm 14 is predefined.
  • an attempt is now made to find more optimal effective strengths W of the algorithms 14 and to suitably adapt the predefined effective strengths W.
  • At least one signal feature M is assigned to each algorithm 14 and the current effectiveness aW of a respective algorithm 14 is set as a function of the situation by being set as a function of a strength S of the signal feature M in the input signal 12 in the current situation.
  • the processing by the signal processor 18 is therefore carried out depending on the respective strength S of specific signal features M in the input signal 12.
  • the hearing aid 4 then reacts in a given situation to the signal features M by using appropriate algorithms 14 with a predetermined effective strength W, which in a current situation then corresponding to a current potency aW.
  • a respective algorithm 14 acts selectively on the associated signal feature M and leaves other parts of the input signal 12 as unchanged as possible.
  • a respective signal feature M is, for example, amplified or reduced by the associated algorithm 14 .
  • algorithms 14 are available and used and which signal features M are searched for in the input signal 12 and extracted from it are of secondary importance.
  • algorithms 14 are noise suppression, for suppressing noise, e.g. machine or engine noise as a signal feature M, wind noise suppression, for suppressing wind noise with microphone noise as a signal feature M, feedback suppression, sound smoothing, for suppressing impulses as a signal feature M, a Directionality, i.e. directivity of the microphones 16, to emphasize sound from a specific direction, compression, specifically frequency compression, and speech recognition, to emphasize speech.
  • the signal processing 18 works as follows: predefined signal features M are extracted from the input signal 12 . If a corresponding signal feature M is present, the associated algorithm 14 is applied in order to process the corresponding signal feature M in a targeted manner and thereby, for example, emphasize or suppress it in relation to the rest of the input signal 12 .
  • the effective strength W provided for this in a current situation, with which the algorithm 14 is applied, is referred to as the current effective strength aW and is dependent here on the strength S of the signal feature M.
  • the current effective strength aW may not be optimal.
  • the hearing device 4 shown has an extraction unit 26 and a combination unit 28 in addition to the signal processing unit 18 .
  • the input signal 12 is routed along a main signal path 30 to the combination unit 28 and then for output to the earphone 24.
  • the input signal 12 is routed along a first secondary signal path 32, which branches off the main signal path 30, to the extraction unit 26 , for the extraction of signal features M.
  • the extraction unit 26 recognizes any signal features M present in the input signal 12 and identifies them so that they can be processed by the signal processing 18 in a targeted manner.
  • the extraction unit 26 also measures the strength S of a respective signal feature M.
  • the input signal 12 is routed to the signal processor 18 along a second secondary signal path 34, which also branches off from the main signal path 30, for processing.
  • the signal processing 18 is also connected to the extraction unit 26, so that information regarding the signal features M is transmitted from the extraction unit 26 to the signal processing 18 and the signal processing 18 can be controlled and is also controlled in such a way that the detected signal features M are processed in a targeted manner.
  • the signal processing 18 applies that algorithm 14 which is assigned to a respective signal feature M.
  • the signal processor 18 outputs a processed signal 36 as an output signal, which is then fed to the combining unit 28 and mixed thereby with the input signal 12 from the main path 30, ie the processed signal 36 is applied to the input signal 12. This then results in an overall output signal 22 which is output via the receiver 24 .
  • As an alternative to this in 2 shown configuration are also other configurations and interconnections conceivable and suitable.
  • FIG. 3 a flowchart for an exemplary embodiment of a method according to the invention for operating the hearing system 2 is shown. The method is used effectively for improved adjustment of the hearing device 4 and in this respect also for the operation of the hearing device 4.
  • the hearing system 2 is designed to repeatedly receive a message from the user in such a way that the user is dissatisfied with the sound output in the current situation. Receiving, ie accepting, a message takes place here in a first method step V1 of the method. The dissatisfaction does not have to be explained or specified further by the user, so that the report is undifferentiated negative feedback.
  • the hearing system 2 has an input element 38, here on the additional device 6, alternatively or additionally at another location, eg on the hearing device 4.
  • the additional device 6 shown here is a mobile terminal device, specifically a smartphone. A message can be generated by actuating the input element 38 .
  • the hearing system 2 also has as in 1 a database 10 can be seen.
  • this contains a number of weights G for evaluating a change in the potency W, ie for evaluating a possible change in the value of the potency W.
  • Exemplary weights G are given in FIGS Figures 4 - 6 specified.
  • a respective weight G therefore links two potencies W with one another, more precisely two values for the potency W of an algorithm 14, namely the current potency aW with a possible future potency, or in other words, an initial potency aW or actual potency with a target potency zW or Can potency.
  • the number of weights G is therefore dependent on the number of values for the potency W.
  • weights G for an algorithm 14 with a potency W that can be set in increments of 1 in the range from 0 to 5.
  • a respective weight G evaluates the change from the initial potency aW to one of the possible target potencies zW. If the target potency zW is equal to the starting potency aW, the weight G evaluates the maintenance of this value accordingly. For a single value for the initial potency aW, there are accordingly as many weights G as values for the potency W are possible.
  • These weights G for a specific potency W form a weight profile P or weight vector of this potency W. In 6 an exemplary weight profile P is marked.
  • a number of weight profiles P then form a two-dimensional weight matrix X, as in FIGS Figures 4 - 6 is recognizable.
  • a respective weight G is a measure of the improvement in the sound output to be expected if the current effective strength aW is retained or a different effective strength W is used, so that the weights G are suitable for evaluating a change in the effective strength G. The evaluation may show that a change makes sense or that it makes more sense to keep it. Since a respective weight G thus indicates how desirable it is to use the target potency zW instead of the initial potency aW, the weights G are also referred to as preferences, a weight profile P as a preference profile and the weight matrix X as a preference matrix.
  • each of the algorithms 14 is evaluated by determining an individual case relevance R_e for each of the algorithms 14 on the basis of the weights G, in order to estimate the effect of a change in the effectiveness in the current situation.
  • the individual case relevance R_e is determined, for example, by looking it up or calculating it.
  • This evaluation of the algorithms takes place in a second method step V2 of the method.
  • the user's message signals that the current setting, which includes the potency aW currently used, is not satisfactory for the user, i.e. the user is dissatisfied with one or more of the potency aW currently selected for the algorithms 14 .
  • the individual case relevance R_e is thus in particular a measure of the probability with which the associated algorithm 14 is not set optimally for the user.
  • the individual case relevance R_e does not necessarily have to be calculated as part of the procedure. Since the individual case relevance R_e in the present case is only dependent on the previously known weights G, it is possible to calculate all possible individual case relevance R_e in advance and then to look them up during the method as required.
  • the relevance value R is determined as part of the second method step V2.
  • the adjustment of the current potency aW and the use of the adjusted potency pW take place in a fourth method step V4 of the method.
  • the recommended potency eW is determined here in the second method step V2, since the weights G are also used here, but a determination elsewhere is also possible and suitable.
  • the comparison of the various relevance values R also referred to as the overall ranking, and the selection of the most relevant algorithm 14 take place in a third method step V3 of the method.
  • a corresponding number of messages are received, because for each message for a respective algorithm 14 exactly one individual case relevance R_e is usually determined. These are collected over several reports and a relevance value R is calculated for each algorithm 14 from the individual individual case relevance R_e.
  • the relevance values R of the various algorithms 14 are then compared in an overall ranking in order to find the algorithm 14 which is most relevant and therefore appears to be the most important for the user. In the present case, the algorithm 14 that has the highest relevance value R is selected as the most relevant algorithm 14 .
  • the algorithm 14 that is particularly important to the user is identified without the user having to provide explicit information on this.
  • a recommendation for a new potency can also be derived from the weights G, ie a recommended potency eW.
  • the database 10 in 1 is designed in such a way that the strength S of the signal feature M, which is assigned to a respective algorithm 14, is taken into account when determining the individual case relevance R_e and the recommended effective strength eW.
  • the strength S of the respective signal feature M is measured in any case, for example in the extraction unit 26, in order to control the signal processing 18 as already described above and to set the effective strengths W of the algorithms 14 depending on the situation.
  • one or more signal features M are now extracted from the input signal 12 and their respective strength S is determined.
  • the database 10 contains several weights G for different strengths S of the signal feature M for each algorithm 14, each for evaluating a change from the effective strength W to the determined strength S.
  • the strength S is mapped to a strength range, for example from 0 to 5, where 0 means that the signal feature M is not present and the strength S of the signal feature M increases with increasing value.
  • the weighting matrix X for a respective algorithm 14 is therefore not only two-dimensional, but three-dimensional, since a third dimension for the strength S is now added to the two dimensions of the starting strength aW and the target strength zW. Accordingly, the number of weights G is increased.
  • An individual algorithm 14 is evaluated, ie its individual case relevance R_e is determined as a function of the strength S which is determined in the current situation for that signal feature M which is assigned to the algorithm 14 .
  • FIG. 5 and 6 is a section of the three-dimensional weight matrix X 4 shown. So shows figure 5 the two-dimensional weight matrix X for a strength S of 5, ie a very strong signal feature M, and 6 shows the two-dimensional weight matrix X for a strength S of 3, ie a signal feature M of medium strength.
  • the values shown for the weights G are example values which, however, illustrate the tendency to switch to a greater potency W at a greater strength S.
  • the two-dimensional weight matrix X for a strength S of 0, i.e. when the signal feature M is not contained in the input signal 12 is an identity matrix, so that the corresponding weights G indicate that in the event that the signal feature M is not present, recommended will maintain the current potency aW.
  • FIG. 4 - 6 gives a respective weight G, which proportion of users of a reference group prefers the associated change.
  • a respective weight G is generated by corresponding tests and recordings in connection with other users of hearing aids 4 .
  • a respective weighting matrix X then contains those proportions of users of the reference group who have changed at a specific strength S of a specific signal feature M and starting from an initial potency aW to a specific target potency zW (or possibly have retained the initial potency aW).
  • the weights G of a respective weight profile P are normalized in such a way that their sum is 100.
  • the database 10 is now looked up to determine which effective strengths W are preferred by the reference group for a particular algorithm 14 when the extracted signal features M are present and are therefore, so to speak, recommended.
  • the individual case relevance R_e and a recommended potency eW can be determined for another user.
  • the reference group mentioned includes, for example, only those users who are similar to the user, in particular those users for whom a similar audiogram was determined as for the user.
  • the similarity of their audiograms and/or other individual ones serves as a benchmark for the similarity of the user with the users of the reference group and their selection Characteristics, e.g. age, gender, type of hearing impairment and the like. It is assumed that similar users also have similar preferences and needs with regard to the operation of the hearing device.
  • the recommended potency eW is calculated from the weights G when a message is received or once in advance and, if necessary, again when the weights G are updated calculated from the weights G.
  • the weights G of the weight profile P are used for the current potency aW.
  • the corresponding weight profile P is selected, which for this strength S and this strength W as the starting strength aW the various weights G for a selection of a respective target strength zW contains.
  • the strength S is 3, so the two-dimensional weight matrix X is off 6 is used.
  • the current potency aW is also 3, so in 6 the marked weight profile P is selected. From its six weights G in connection with the possible potency W, it is then calculated which potency W is recommended, eg by averaging or median value formation. For example, a respective target potency zW is multiplied by the associated weight G and thereby weighted, the target potencies zW weighted in this way are then added and divided by the sum of the weights G, here 100. In the example, the potency W is then 3.42, which, for example, is additionally rounded to a recommended potency eW of 3.
  • the calculated, recommended potency eW can basically match the current potency aW, but then the associated algorithm 14 will be of little relevance since there is a match, for example, with the underlying reference group. However, if there is a difference between the recommended potency eW and the current potency aW, it can be assumed that a change to the recommended potency eW would lead to an improvement in the current situation. This is the case, for example, if in 6 the current potency aW is 0. As recommended The potency eW is again 3, which then deviates from the starting potency aW 0.
  • the individual case relevance R_e is a parameter for evaluating an algorithm 14 in the current situation for which the report was made. The following applies: the greater the individual relevance R_e of a first algorithm 14 compared to the individual relevance R_e of a second algorithm 14, the more relevant the first algorithm 14 appears to the user in the current situation compared to the second algorithm14. The same also applies to the relevance value R, which is derived from the individual case relevance R_e.
  • a respective individual case relevance R_e is calculated using the weights G, which are stored in the database 10 and in which, in particular, recommendations and/or experiences of other users and/or experts are encoded. In principle, various calculation methods are possible and suitable, either individually or in combination.
  • a respective individual case relevance R_e is calculated as a function of a potency difference, which is the difference between the current potency aW and the recommended potency eW.
  • the amount of the difference is also formed, so that regardless of whether the recommended potency eW is above or below the current potency aW, the greater the difference, the higher the individual case relevance R_e.
  • the recommended potency eW is simply used as the adjusted potency pW.
  • an intermediate value is formed, for example the mean value from the current potency aW and the recommended potency eW, in order to achieve an adjustment to the recommended potency eW.
  • a respective individual case relevance R_e is calculated depending on a change recommendation, which is a measure of the sum of the weights G for changing to a different potency W on the one hand compared to the weight G for maintaining the current potency aW on the other.
  • a normalized difference is formed as a change recommendation from the sum of the weights G for changing to a different potency W and the weight G for maintaining the current potency aW.
  • the weights G of the weight profile P for the current situation and the current potency aW are used. This difference is divided by the sum of all weights G of this weight profile P for normalization.
  • a respective individual case relevance R_e is calculated as a function of a spread of the target potency zW for the current potency aW.
  • the spread indicates how much the weights G are focused on a single potency W.
  • the spread is, for example, a variance of the target potencies zW.
  • a weight G for a specific data pair consisting of initial potency aW and target potency zW simply results in the number of data points for this data pair. These data points are then statistically evaluated.
  • the spread shows how strongly a certain potency W is recommended or whether several potencies W are possible, in other words how pronounced the recommendation based on database 10 is.
  • M(x) is the mean value of the potencies W and is then 2.5.
  • V 1.05
  • f3 1.43
  • the relevance value R of a respective algorithm 14 is also calculated from the individual case relevance R_e of this algorithm 14 by means of a statistical evaluation, for example a median value formation. Typically, higher individual case relevance R_e also results in a higher relevance value R.
  • the current effectiveness aW of the most relevant algorithm 14 is only adapted to the recommended effectiveness eW when the relevance value R of the most relevant algorithm 14 differs from the relevance values R of the other algorithms 14 by at least a minimum value dR. Accordingly, it is awaited until a differentiation defined as sufficient via the minimum value dR is achieved and one of the algorithms 14 is discriminated against the other algorithms 14 with sufficient certainty.
  • the minimum value dR is, for example, a minimum required difference between the highest relevance value R and the next highest relevance value R.
  • weights G in the database 10 are optionally updated depending on the adjusted potency aW and this adjusted potency aW is thereby taken into account from now on when determining an individual case relevance R_e and a recommended potency eW.
  • the database 10 is thus continuously updated.
  • the adjusted potency pW is now used as the new, current potency aW, so that if the current situation occurs again, the adjusted potency pW is automatically used.
  • the adjusted effective strength pW is thus set directly by the hearing system 2 and now represents that effective strength W which will be used in the future when a corresponding situation arises. Should a message then nevertheless occur again, the method is continued as already described in order to obtain a further adaptation of the same or a different algorithm 14 .
  • this is first suggested to the user in a test mode and only used as the new current potency aW after confirmation by the user.
  • the test mode is therefore used as a kind of test listening and the user is given the opportunity to test the adjusted potency pW in advance and then either accept or reject it. This is made possible via corresponding input elements 38, for example on the hearing aid 4 or on the additional device 6.
  • a different, experimental potency W is optionally suggested in the test mode instead of an adjusted potency pW, so the user is not offered the potency pW adapted according to the method, but intentionally one different and possibly less optimal potency W. If the experimental potency W is then still satisfactory for the user, the user will accept the experimental potency W, so that it will henceforth be used by the hearing system 2 as the new current potency aW.
  • the weights G in the database 10 are also updated as a function of the experimental potency W and this is then taken into account when determining an individual case relevance R_e and a recommended potency eW.
  • the experimental potency W is selected, for example, higher or lower than the recommended potency eW or is a random value.
  • the hearing system 2 comprises at least one hearing aid 4 and a database 10 as described above.
  • the hearing device 4 is connected to the database 10 for data exchange via a data connection 40, for example via the Internet.
  • the database 10 is part of the server 8 here, which is part of the hearing system 2 accordingly.
  • the hearing system 2 in the exemplary embodiment shown here also includes the additional device 6, which serves as an intermediary between the hearing device 4 and the server 8 and for their connection for the purpose of data exchange.
  • the hearing aid 4 and the additional device 6 are connected via a Bluetooth connection for data exchange, for example, while the additional device 6 and the database 10 are connected, for example, as in FIG 1 shown over the unspecified internet.
  • the individual case relevance R_e is calculated on the server 8 in the exemplary embodiment shown, but this is not mandatory. In contrast, the relevance values R are calculated here on the additional device 6, which, however, is also not mandatory.

Landscapes

  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Neurosurgery (AREA)
  • Otolaryngology (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Acoustics & Sound (AREA)
  • Signal Processing (AREA)
  • Computer Networks & Wireless Communication (AREA)
  • Information Retrieval, Db Structures And Fs Structures Therefor (AREA)
  • Circuit For Audible Band Transducer (AREA)

Claims (15)

  1. Procédé pour faire fonctionner un système auditif (2),
    - le système auditif (2) possédant un appareil auditif (4), lequel est configuré pour, en vue d'une émission acoustique à un utilisateur, modifier un signal d'entrée (12) et employer à cet effet plusieurs algorithmes (14) ayant un degré d'activité (W) respectif, de sorte qu'un algorithme (14) respectif ayant un degré d'activité (W) actuel soit utilisé dans une situation actuelle,
    - le système auditif (2) possédant un élément d'entrée (38) pour recevoir un message de l'utilisateur,
    - le système auditif (2) étant configuré pour recevoir de façon récurrente un message de l'utilisateur de telle sorte que l'utilisateur est insatisfait de l'émission acoustique dans la situation actuelle,
    - le système auditif (2) possédant une base de données (10), laquelle contient plusieurs poids (G) pour chaque algorithme (14) en vue d'évaluer un changement du degré d'activité (W),
    - dans le cas où un message est reçu, chacun des algorithmes (14) étant évalué en identifiant pour chacun des algorithmes (14), à l'aide des poids (G), une pertinence de cas particulier (R_e), en vue d'estimer l'effet d'un changement du degré d'activité (W) dans la situation actuelle,
    - plusieurs pertinences de cas particulier (R_e) étant regroupées en une valeur de pertinence (R) pour chaque algorithme (14), les valeurs de pertinence (R) étant comparées entre elles, l'algorithme (14) le plus pertinent étant sélectionné à l'aide de celles-ci et un degré d'activité adapté (pW) étant ensuite utilisé pour celles-ci en adaptant le degré d'activité actuel (aW) de l'algorithme (14) à un degré d'activité recommandé (eW), lequel est déterminé à l'aide des poids (G).
  2. Procédé selon la revendication 1, au moins une caractéristique de signal (M) étant associée à chaque algorithme (14) et le degré d'activité actuel (aW) d'un algorithme (14) respectif étant réglé en fonction de la situation en réglant celle-ci en fonction d'une intensité (S) de la caractéristique de signal (M) dans le signal d'entrée (12) dans la situation actuelle.
  3. Procédé selon la revendication 2, la base de données (10) étant configurée de telle sorte que l'intensité (S) de la caractéristique de signal (M) est prise en compte lors de l'identification de la pertinence de cas particulier (R_e) et du degré d'activité recommandé (eW).
  4. Procédé selon l'une des revendications 1 à 3, un poids (G) respectif indiquant la proportion d'utilisateurs d'un groupe de référence qui privilégie le changement associé.
  5. Procédé selon la revendication 4, le groupe de référence comprenant uniquement les utilisateurs qui sont similaires à l'utilisateur, notamment les utilisateurs pour lesquels a été identifié un audiogramme similaire à celui de l'utilisateur.
  6. Procédé selon l'une des revendications 1 à 5, le degré d'activité recommandé (eW) étant calculé à partir des poids (G) au moyen d'une interprétation statistique, de préférence un calcul de la valeur moyenne ou un calcul de la valeur médiane.
  7. Procédé selon l'une des revendications 1 à 6, une pertinence de cas particulier (R_e) respective étant calculée en fonction d'une différence de degrés d'activité, laquelle est la différence entre le degré d'activité actuel (aW) et le degré d'activité recommandé (eW) .
  8. Procédé selon l'une des revendications 1 à 7, une pertinence de cas particulier (R_e) respective étant calculée en fonction d'une recommandation de modification, laquelle est une mesure pour la somme des poids (G) en vue de changer à un autre degré d'activité (W) d'une part en comparaison du poids (G) en vue de conserver le degré d'activité actuel (aW) d'autre part.
  9. Procédé selon l'une des revendications 1 à 8, une pertinence de cas particulier (R_e) respective étant calculée en fonction d'une mesure de dispersion pour le degré d'activité actuel (aW).
  10. Procédé selon l'une des revendications 1 à 9, la valeur de pertinence (R) d'un algorithme (14) respectif étant calculée au moyen d'une interprétation statistique, de préférence un calcul de la valeur médiane, à partir des pertinences de cas particulier (R_e) de cet algorithme (14).
  11. Procédé selon l'une des revendications 1 à 10, le degré d'activité actuel (aW) de l'algorithme (14) le plus pertinent n'étant adapté au degré d'activité recommandé (eW) qu'une fois que la valeur de pertinence (R) de l'algorithme (14) le plus pertinent diffère d'au moins une valeur minimale (dR) des valeurs de pertinence (R) des algorithmes (14) restants.
  12. Procédé selon l'une des revendications 1 à 11, les poids (G) dans la base de données (10) étant actualisés en fonction du degré d'activité adapté (pW) et celui-ci étant de ce fait désormais pris en compte lors de l'identification d'une pertinence de cas particulier (R_e) et d'un degré d'activité recommandé (eW).
  13. Procédé selon l'une des revendications 1 à 12, le degré d'activité adapté (pW) étant proposé à l'utilisateur dans un mode de test et n'étant utilisé comme nouveau degré d'activité actuel (aW) qu'après une confirmation par l'utilisateur.
  14. Procédé selon la revendication 13, un autre degré d'activité (W) expérimental étant proposé occasionnellement dans le mode de test à la place d'un degré d'activité adapté (pW).
  15. Système auditif (2) qui est configuré pour mettre en œuvre un procédé selon l'une des revendications 1 à 14.
EP21179822.8A 2020-07-20 2021-06-16 Procédé de fonctionnement d'un système auditif, système auditif, appareil auditif Active EP3944635B1 (fr)

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
DE102020209050.5A DE102020209050B4 (de) 2020-07-20 2020-07-20 Verfahren zum Betrieb eines Hörsystems, Hörsystem, Hörgerät

Publications (3)

Publication Number Publication Date
EP3944635A1 EP3944635A1 (fr) 2022-01-26
EP3944635C0 EP3944635C0 (fr) 2023-08-02
EP3944635B1 true EP3944635B1 (fr) 2023-08-02

Family

ID=76623849

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
EP21179822.8A Active EP3944635B1 (fr) 2020-07-20 2021-06-16 Procédé de fonctionnement d'un système auditif, système auditif, appareil auditif

Country Status (4)

Country Link
US (1) US11678127B2 (fr)
EP (1) EP3944635B1 (fr)
CN (1) CN113965862A (fr)
DE (1) DE102020209050B4 (fr)

Family Cites Families (13)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
DE10114015C2 (de) 2001-03-22 2003-02-27 Siemens Audiologische Technik Verfahren zum Betrieb eines Hörhilfe- und/oder Gehörschutzgerätes sowie Hörhilfe- und/oder Gehörschutzgerät
US7787648B1 (en) 2005-08-26 2010-08-31 At&T Mobility Ii Llc Active cancellation hearing assistance device
US8477972B2 (en) * 2008-03-27 2013-07-02 Phonak Ag Method for operating a hearing device
US9648430B2 (en) 2013-12-13 2017-05-09 Gn Hearing A/S Learning hearing aid
JP6190351B2 (ja) * 2013-12-13 2017-08-30 ジーエヌ ヒアリング エー／エスＧＮ Ｈｅａｒｉｎｇ Ａ／Ｓ 学習型補聴器
EP2908549A1 (fr) * 2014-02-13 2015-08-19 Oticon A/s Dispositif de prothèse auditive comprenant un élément de capteur
US10127919B2 (en) * 2014-11-12 2018-11-13 Cirrus Logic, Inc. Determining noise and sound power level differences between primary and reference channels
US10750293B2 (en) * 2016-02-08 2020-08-18 Hearing Instrument Manufacture Patent Partnership Hearing augmentation systems and methods
DE102016216054A1 (de) * 2016-08-25 2018-03-01 Sivantos Pte. Ltd. Verfahren und Einrichtung zur Einstellung eines Hörhilfegeräts
EP3297298B1 (fr) * 2016-09-19 2020-05-06 A-Volute Procédé de reproduction de sons répartis dans l'espace
EP3468227B1 (fr) 2017-10-03 2023-05-03 GN Hearing A/S Système avec programme informatique et serveur de requêtes de service de dispositif auditif
US11412333B2 (en) * 2017-11-15 2022-08-09 Starkey Laboratories, Inc. Interactive system for hearing devices
EP3496417A3 (fr) * 2017-12-06 2019-08-07 Oticon A/s Système auditif adapté à la navigation et procédé associé

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
EP3944635C0 (fr) 2023-08-02
EP3944635A1 (fr) 2022-01-26
CN113965862A (zh) 2022-01-21
US20220021986A1 (en) 2022-01-20
US11678127B2 (en) 2023-06-13
DE102020209050A1 (de) 2022-01-20
DE102020209050B4 (de) 2022-05-25

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
EP2306756B1 (fr) Procédé d'adaptation précise d'un appareil d'aide auditive, ainsi qu'appareil d'aide auditive
DE102016216054A1 (de) Verfahren und Einrichtung zur Einstellung eines Hörhilfegeräts
DE102008008898B3 (de) Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum Überwachen einer Hörhilfe
EP3809724B1 (fr) Procédé de fonctionnement d'un appareil auditif ainsi qu'appareil auditif
DE60205232T2 (de) Verfahren und vorrichtung zur bestimmung der qualität eines sprachsignals
EP3266222B1 (fr) Dispositif et procédé pour l'excitation des compresseurs dynamiques d'un appareil auditif binaural
EP2305117A2 (fr) Procédé d'adaptation d'un appareil d'aide auditive ainsi qu'appareil d'adaptation d'appareils d'aide auditive
EP3062249A1 (fr) Procede de determination de donnees de rendement specifiques au porteur d'un appareil auditif, procede d'adaptation de reglages d'appareil auditif, systeme d'appareil auditif et unite de reglage pour un systeme d'appareil auditif
DE102019218616A1 (de) Verfahren zum Betrieb eines Hörsystems, Hörsystem und Computerprogrammprodukt
DE102017200597B4 (de) Verfahren zum Betrieb eines Hörsystems und Hörsystem
EP2239963B1 (fr) Procédé et dispositif auditif destinés au réglage d'un appareil auditif doté de dotées enregistrées dans une unité externe
EP1933590A1 (fr) Procédé destiné à l'adaptation d'appareils auditifs
DE102019203786A1 (de) Hörgerätesystem
DE102009007074A1 (de) Verfahren und Hörvorrichtung zum Einstellen eines Hörgeräts aus aufgezeichneten Daten
EP3793218B1 (fr) Procédé de fonctionnement d'un appareil auditif ainsi qu'appareil auditif
EP3944635B1 (fr) Procédé de fonctionnement d'un système auditif, système auditif, appareil auditif
DE102006015497B4 (de) Audiosystem und Verfahren sowie Computerprogramm und Datenträger der das Computerprogramm enthält zur Anpassung der Übertragungsfunktion eines Audiosystems mittels Sprachsteuerung
DE102016207936A1 (de) Verfahren zum Betrieb eines Hörgeräts
CH709679A2 (de) Verfahren zur Fernunterstützung von Schwerhörigen.
DE10053179A1 (de) Hörgeräte-Anpassungsvorrichtung
DE102019201879B3 (de) Verfahren zum Betrieb eines Hörsystems und Hörsystem
EP1933591B1 (fr) Procédé de détermination de la capacité auditive individuelle
DE102022200810B3 (de) Verfahren für ein Hörsystem zur Anpassung einer Mehrzahl an Signalverarbeitungsparametern eines Hörinstrumentes des Hörsystems
EP3944634A2 (fr) Procédé d'identification d'une interférence, ainsi que système auditif
WO2024104945A1 (fr) Procédé de fonctionnement d'une prothèse auditive, et prothèse auditive

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
PUAI Public reference made under article 153(3) epc to a published international application that has entered the european phase

Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: 0009012

STAA Information on the status of an ep patent application or granted ep patent

Free format text: STATUS: THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN PUBLISHED

AK Designated contracting states

Kind code of ref document: A1

Designated state(s): AL AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR

STAA Information on the status of an ep patent application or granted ep patent

Free format text: STATUS: REQUEST FOR EXAMINATION WAS MADE

17P Request for examination filed

Effective date: 20220406

RBV Designated contracting states (corrected)

Designated state(s): AL AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR

GRAP Despatch of communication of intention to grant a patent

Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: EPIDOSNIGR1

STAA Information on the status of an ep patent application or granted ep patent

Free format text: STATUS: GRANT OF PATENT IS INTENDED

RIC1 Information provided on ipc code assigned before grant

Ipc: H04R 25/00 20060101AFI20230214BHEP

INTG Intention to grant announced

Effective date: 20230228

GRAS Grant fee paid

Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: EPIDOSNIGR3

GRAA (expected) grant

Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: 0009210

STAA Information on the status of an ep patent application or granted ep patent

Free format text: STATUS: THE PATENT HAS BEEN GRANTED

AK Designated contracting states

Kind code of ref document: B1

Designated state(s): AL AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR

REG Reference to a national code

Ref country code: GB

Ref legal event code: FG4D

Free format text: NOT ENGLISH

REG Reference to a national code

Ref country code: CH

Ref legal event code: EP

REG Reference to a national code

Ref country code: DE

Ref legal event code: R096

Ref document number: 502021001139

Country of ref document: DE

REG Reference to a national code

Ref country code: IE

Ref legal event code: FG4D

Free format text: LANGUAGE OF EP DOCUMENT: GERMAN

U01 Request for unitary effect filed

Effective date: 20230825

U07 Unitary effect registered

Designated state(s): AT BE BG DE DK EE FI FR IT LT LU LV MT NL PT SE SI

Effective date: 20230904

PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: GR

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20231103

PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: IS

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20231202

PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: RS

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20230802

Ref country code: NO

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20231102

Ref country code: IS

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20231202

Ref country code: HR

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20230802

Ref country code: GR

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20231103

PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: PL

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20230802

PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: ES

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20230802

PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: SM

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20230802

Ref country code: RO

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20230802

Ref country code: ES

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20230802

Ref country code: CZ

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20230802

Ref country code: SK

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20230802