Literature DB >> 15292777

Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems.

Jill B Firszt1, Laura K Holden, Margaret W Skinner, Emily A Tobey, Ann Peterson, Wolfgang Gaggl, Christina L Runge-Samuelson, P Ashley Wackym.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a large-scale investigation with adult recipients of the Clarion, Med-El, and Nucleus cochlear implant systems to (1) determine average scores and ranges of performance for word and sentence stimuli presented at three intensity levels (70, 60, and 50 dB SPL); (2) provide information on the variability of scores for each subject by obtaining test-retest measures for all test conditions; and (3) further evaluate the potential use of lower speech presentation levels (i.e., 60 and/or 50 dB SPL) in cochlear implant candidacy assessment.
DESIGN: Seventy-eight adult cochlear implant recipients, 26 with each of the three cochlear implant systems, participated in the study. To ensure that the data collected reflect the range of performance of adult recipients using recent technology for the three implant systems (Clarion HiFocus I or II, Med-El Combi 40+, Nucleus 24M or 24R), a composite range and distribution of consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) monosyllabic word scores was determined. Subjects using each device were selected to closely represent this range and distribution of CNC performance. During test sessions, subjects were administered the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentence test and the CNC word test at three presentation levels (70, 60, and 50 dB SPL). HINT sentences also were administered at 60 dB SPL with a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of +8 dB. Warble tones were used to determine sound-field threshold levels from 250 to 4000 Hz. Test-retest measures were obtained for each of the speech recognition tests as well as for warble-tone sound-field thresholds.
RESULTS: Cochlear implant recipients using the Clarion, Med-El, or Nucleus devices performed on average equally as well at 60 compared with 70 dB SPL when listening for words and sentences. Additionally, subjects had substantial open-set speech perception performance at the softer level of 50 dB SPL for the same stimuli; however, subjects' ability to understand speech was poorer when listening in noise to signals of greater intensity (60 dB SPL + 8 SNR) than when listening to signals presented at a soft presentation level (50 dB SPL) in quiet. A significant correlation was found between sound-field thresholds and speech recognition scores for presentation levels below 70 dB SPL. The results demonstrated a high test-retest reliability with cochlear implant users for these presentation levels and stimuli. Average sound-field thresholds were between 24 and 29 dB HL for frequencies of 250 to 4000 Hz, and results across sessions were essentially the same.
CONCLUSIONS: Speech perception measures used with cochlear implant candidates and recipients should reflect the listening challenges that individuals encounter in natural communication situations. These data provide the basis for recommending new candidacy criteria based on speech recognition tests presented at 60 and/or 50 dB SPL, intensity levels that reflect real-life listening, rather than 70 dB SPL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15292777     DOI: 10.1097/01.aud.0000134552.22205.ee

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  97 in total

1.  Optimizing the perception of soft speech and speech in noise with the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant system.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Ruth M Reeder; Jill B Firszt; Charles C Finley
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 2.117

2.  Phonological awareness, reading skills, and vocabulary knowledge in children who use cochlear implants.

Authors:  Caitlin M Dillon; Kenneth de Jong; David B Pisoni
Journal:  J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ       Date:  2011-11-03

3.  Factors contributing to speech perception scores in long-term pediatric cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Lisa S Davidson; Ann E Geers; Peter J Blamey; Emily A Tobey; Christine A Brenner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  A new software tool to optimize frequency table selection for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Daniel Jethanamest; Chin-Tuan Tan; Matthew B Fitzgerald; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Word Recognition Variability With Cochlear Implants: "Perceptual Attention" Versus "Auditory Sensitivity".

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Joanna H Lowenstein; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Do adults with cochlear implants rely on different acoustic cues for phoneme perception than adults with normal hearing?

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Joanna H Lowenstein; Eric Tarr; Amanda Caldwell-Tarr; D Bradley Welling; Antoine J Shahin; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  A longitudinal study in adults with sequential bilateral cochlear implants: time course for individual ear and bilateral performance.

Authors:  Ruth M Reeder; Jill B Firszt; Laura K Holden; Michael J Strube
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-06-01       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Evaluation of hearing aid frequency response fittings in pediatric and young adult bimodal recipients.

Authors:  Lisa S Davidson; Jill B Firszt; Chris Brenner; Jamie H Cadieux
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  Electrically Evoked Auditory Event-Related Responses in Patients with Auditory Brainstem Implants: Morphological Characteristics, Test-Retest Reliability, Effects of Stimulation Level, and Association with Auditory Detection.

Authors:  Shuman He; Tyler C McFayden; Holly F B Teagle; Matthew Ewend; Lillian Henderson; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Factors Affecting Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients Implanted With a Perimodiolar Electrode Array Located in Scala Tympani.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Rosalie M Uchanski; Noël Y Dwyer; Timothy A Holden
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.