Literature DB >> 14520097

Combining acoustic and electrical hearing.

Bruce J Gantz1, Christopher W Turner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The concept of combining electrical stimulation for high-frequency sound with acoustic hearing for low-frequency information was tested. In addition, whether residual hearing can be preserved when an electrode is placed into the inner ear up to 10 mm and whether place of electrical stimulation influences speech perception were tested. STUDY
DESIGN: A single-subject clinical trial design was employed.
METHODS: Six postlingual adults with severe high-frequency hearing impairment were recruited to participate in the study. A new six-channel cochlear implant was designed for the clinical trial. The intracochlear electrodes were either 6 or 10 mm in length based on a Nucleus CI-24 multichannel implant. Monosyllabic word understanding and consonant identification testing in a recorded sound-only condition were used to assess changes in speech perception. Follow-up was greater than 12 months.
RESULTS: Acoustic hearing was preserved in all six subjects (n = 3, 6-mm electrodes; n = 3, 10-mm electrodes). Preoperative monosyllabic word and sentence scores were unchanged in all subjects following implantation. A 30% to 40% improvement in consonant recognition occurred with the 10-mm electrode. The subjects with 10-mm electrodes were able to understand 83% to 90% of the monosyllabic words using the implant plus binaural hearing aids. Scores were more than doubled when compared with preoperative scores with hearing aids only.
CONCLUSION: The human ear has the capability to integrate both acoustic and high-frequency electrically processed speech information. Placement of a short, 10-mm electrode does not appear to damage residual low-frequency inner ear hair cell function, interfere with the micro mechanics of normal cochlear vibration, or decrease residual speech perception. The improvement in speech recognition was due primarily to the increased perception of higher-frequency consonantal speech cues, and this improvement took several months to become apparent. Such a device can provide a substantial benefit in speech understanding to individuals with severe high-frequency hearing loss, while still maintaining the benefits of the residual lower-frequency acoustic hearing. The position of the electrode and the place of frequency information within the cochlea were shown to be important factors in the success of such a device.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14520097     DOI: 10.1097/00005537-200310000-00012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  115 in total

1.  Shifting fundamental frequency in simulated electric-acoustic listening.

Authors:  Christopher A Brown; Nicole M Scherrer; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Multicenter clinical trial of the Nucleus Hybrid S8 cochlear implant: Final outcomes.

Authors:  Bruce J Gantz; Camille Dunn; Jacob Oleson; Marlan Hansen; Aaron Parkinson; Christopher Turner
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  Effects of Removing Low-Frequency Electric Information on Speech Perception With Bimodal Hearing.

Authors:  Jennifer R Fowler; Jessica L Eggleston; Kelly M Reavis; Garnett P McMillan; Lina A J Reiss
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Perception of consonants in reverberation and noise by adults fitted with bimodal devices.

Authors:  Michelle Mason; Kostas Kokkinakis
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Using Neural Response Telemetry to Monitor Physiological Responses to Acoustic Stimulation in Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Paul J Abbas; Viral D Tejani; Rachel A Scheperle; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  [Acoustic-mechanical trauma during cochleostomy: animal experimental studies].

Authors:  C Punke; T Zehlicke; U Sievert; H W Pau
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.284

7.  Minimum Reporting Standards for Adult Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Oliver F Adunka; Bruce J Gantz; Camille Dunn; Richard K Gurgel; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-03-20       Impact factor: 3.497

8.  A Preliminary Investigation of the Air-Bone Gap: Changes in Intracochlear Sound Pressure With Air- and Bone-conducted Stimuli After Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Renee M Banakis Hartl; Jameson K Mattingly; Nathaniel T Greene; Herman A Jenkins; Stephen P Cass; Daniel J Tollin
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Intracochlear Pressure Transients During Cochlear Implant Electrode Insertion.

Authors:  Nathaniel T Greene; Jameson K Mattingly; Renee M Banakis Hartl; Daniel J Tollin; Stephen P Cass
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 10.  The Hybrid cochlear implant: a review.

Authors:  Erika A Woodson; Lina A J Reiss; Christopher W Turner; Kate Gfeller; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-11-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.