Literature DB >> 16671848

Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears.

Mansze Mok1, David Grayden, Richard C Dowell, David Lawrence.   

Abstract

This study aimed to (a) investigate the effect of using a hearing aid in conjunction with a cochlear implant in opposite ears on speech perception in quiet and in noise, (b) identify the speech information obtained from a hearing aid that is additive to the information obtained from a cochlear implant, and (c) explore the relationship between aided thresholds in the nonimplanted ear and speech perception benefit from wearing a hearing aid in conjunction with a cochlear implant in opposite ears. Fourteen adults who used the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system in 1 ear participated in the study. All participants had either used a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear for at least 75% of waking hours after cochlear implantation, and/or, hearing loss less than 90 dB HL in the low frequencies in the nonimplanted ear. Speech perception was evaluated in 3 conditions: cochlear implant alone (CI), hearing aid alone (HA), and cochlear implant in conjunction with hearing aid in opposite ears (CIHA). Three speech perception tests were used: consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant (CNC) words in quiet, City University of New York style (CUNY) sentences in coincident signal and noise, and spondees in coincidental and spatially separated signal and noise. Information transmission analyses were performed on the CNC responses. Of the 14 participants tested, 6 showed significant bimodal benefit on open-set speech perception measures and 5 showed benefit on close-set spondees. However, 2 participants showed poorer speech perception with CIHA than CI in at least 1 of the speech perception tests. Results of information transmission analyses showed that bimodal benefit (performance with CIHA minus that with CI) in quiet arises from improved perception of the low frequency components in speech. Results showed that participants with poorer aided thresholds in the mid-to-high frequencies demonstrated greater bimodal benefit. It is possible that the mid-to-high frequency information provided by the hearing aids may be conflicting with the cochlear implants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16671848     DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/027)

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  65 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.  The relative phonetic contributions of a cochlear implant and residual acoustic hearing to bimodal speech perception.

Authors:  Benjamin M Sheffield; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Clinical selection criteria for a second cochlear implant for bimodal listeners.

Authors:  Yang-soo Yoon; You-Ree Shin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.311

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.  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

Review 6.  The development of the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear implant system.

Authors:  James F Patrick; Peter A Busby; Peter J Gibson
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2006-12

7.  Combined electric and contralateral acoustic hearing: word and sentence recognition with bimodal hearing.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman; Sharon A McKarns; Anthony J Spahr
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Restoration of spatial hearing in adult cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness.

Authors:  Ruth Y Litovsky; Keng Moua; Shelly Godar; Alan Kan; Sara M Misurelli; Daniel J Lee
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-04-14       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  The benefits of bimodal hearing: effect of frequency region and acoustic bandwidth.

Authors:  Sterling W Sheffield; René H Gifford
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2014-02-15       Impact factor: 1.854

10.  Benefits of localization and speech perception with multiple noise sources in listeners with a short-electrode cochlear implant.

Authors:  Camille C Dunn; Ann Perreau; Bruce Gantz; Richard S Tyler
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.