Literature DB >> 16103645

Minimum audible angle, just noticeable interaural differences and speech intelligibility with bilateral cochlear implants using clinical speech processors.

Pascal Senn1, Martin Kompis, Mattheus Vischer, Rudolf Haeusler.   

Abstract

Sound localization and speech intelligibility were assessed in 5 patients implanted bilaterally with Medel C40+ or Medel C40 cochlear implant (CI) systems. The minimum audible angle (MAA) around the head in the horizontal plane was assessed in patients with bilateral CI using white noise bursts of 1000 ms duration presented from a loudspeaker mounted on a rotating boom and compared with the MAA of age-matched normal hearing controls. Spatial discrimination was found to be good in front and in the back of the head with near-normal MAA values (patients: 3-8 degrees , controls: 1-4 degrees ). In contrast, poor performance on the sides was found (patients: 30 to over 45 degrees , controls 7-10 degrees ). Bilateral CI significantly improved spatial discrimination in front for all patients, when compared with the use of either CI alone. Just noticeable differences (JNDs) in interaural intensity and time were assessed using white noise bursts (1000 ms duration; 50 ms linear ramp). In addition, interaural time JNDs were assessed using click trains (800 ms duration, 40 mus clicks, 50 Hz) and noise bursts in which either only the envelope or only the fine structure was shifted in time. In comparison with normal hearing controls, patients with bilateral CI showed near-normal interaural intensity JNDs but substantially poorer interaural time JNDs depending on the type of stimulus. In contrast to envelope onset/offset cues, interaural fine structure time differences were not perceived by the patients using CI systems employing the continuous interleaved sampling strategy without synchronization between their pulse stimulation times. Speech intelligibility in quiet and CCITT noise from the side (+/-90 degrees ) was assessed using the German HSM sentence test and was significantly better when using bilateral CI in comparison with either unilateral CI, mainly due to a head shadow effect. These favorable results are in agreement with the patients' subjective experiences assessed with a questionnaire and support the use of bilateral CI. Copyright (c) 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16103645     DOI: 10.1159/000087351

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Audiol Neurootol        ISSN: 1420-3030            Impact factor:   1.854


  30 in total

1.  Current and planned cochlear implant research at New York University Laboratory for Translational Auditory Research.

Authors:  Mario A Svirsky; Matthew B Fitzgerald; Arlene Neuman; Elad Sagi; Chin-Tuan Tan; Darlene Ketten; Brett Martin
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Statistical bias in the assessment of binaural benefit relative to the better ear.

Authors:  Richard J M van Hoesel; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 3.  MED-EL Cochlear implants: state of the art and a glimpse into the future.

Authors:  Ingeborg Hochmair; Peter Nopp; Claude Jolly; Marcus Schmidt; Hansjörg Schösser; Carolyn Garnham; Ilona Anderson
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2006-12

4.  Discrimination of Schroeder-phase harmonic complexes by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.

Authors:  Ward R Drennan; Jeff K Longnion; Chad Ruffin; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-12-08

5.  William House Cochlear Implant Study Group: position statement on bilateral cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Thomas Balkany; Anelle Hodges; Fred Telischi; Ronald Hoffman; Jane Madell; Simon Parisier; Bruce Gantz; Richard Tyler; Robert Peters; Ruth Litovsky
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Sensitivity to interaural time differences with combined cochlear implant and acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Tom Francart; Jan Brokx; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2008-12-02

7.  Comparison of speech recognition and localization performance in bilateral and unilateral cochlear implant users matched on duration of deafness and age at implantation.

Authors:  Camille C Dunn; Richard S Tyler; Sarah Oakley; Bruce J Gantz; William Noble
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 8.  [Bilateral cochlear implants].

Authors:  J Müller
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 1.284

9.  Sensitivity of bilateral cochlear implant users to fine-structure and envelope interaural time differences.

Authors:  Victor A Noel; Donald K Eddington
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  An attempt to improve bilateral cochlear implants by increasing the distance between electrodes and providing complementary information to the two ears.

Authors:  Richard S Tyler; Shelley A Witt; Camille C Dunn; Ann Perreau; Aaron J Parkinson; Blake S Wilson
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.664

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.