PURPOSE: Speech recognition performance in noise was examined in children with cochlear implants (CIs) when using (a) a second CI (bilateral group), (b) a hearing aid (HA) on the nonimplant ear (bimodal group), and (c) a frequency modulation (FM) system on 1 or both sides. METHOD: While always maintaining use of the first CI, 2 groups participated in 6 conditions each using various listening arrangements with the second CI, HA, or FM system. Speech-in-noise thresholds were determined using simple phrases, classroom noise, and a method-of-limits approach. RESULTS: No group differences were detected across any conditions. In the no-FM-system conditions, no significant benefit of bilateral or bimodal input was found relative to a single CI. In the FM-system conditions, thresholds were significantly lower (up to 20 dB) relative to all other conditions when FM-system input was provided to the first-implanted side or to both sides simultaneously. CONCLUSIONS: Children's speech-in-noise thresholds did not improve when providing input to the second side with a CI or an HA relative to a single CI. However, children with CIs had better speech recognition in noise with the use of an FM system on one or both sides relative to the conditions with no FM system. Binaural conditions with a single FM receiver on the second CI or HA yielded significantly poorer performance than any other FM condition.
PURPOSE: Speech recognition performance in noise was examined in children with cochlear implants (CIs) when using (a) a second CI (bilateral group), (b) a hearing aid (HA) on the nonimplant ear (bimodal group), and (c) a frequency modulation (FM) system on 1 or both sides. METHOD: While always maintaining use of the first CI, 2 groups participated in 6 conditions each using various listening arrangements with the second CI, HA, or FM system. Speech-in-noise thresholds were determined using simple phrases, classroom noise, and a method-of-limits approach. RESULTS: No group differences were detected across any conditions. In the no-FM-system conditions, no significant benefit of bilateral or bimodal input was found relative to a single CI. In the FM-system conditions, thresholds were significantly lower (up to 20 dB) relative to all other conditions when FM-system input was provided to the first-implanted side or to both sides simultaneously. CONCLUSIONS:Children's speech-in-noise thresholds did not improve when providing input to the second side with a CI or an HA relative to a single CI. However, children with CIs had better speech recognition in noise with the use of an FM system on one or both sides relative to the conditions with no FM system. Binaural conditions with a single FM receiver on the second CI or HA yielded significantly poorer performance than any other FM condition.
Authors: Elizabeth A Walker; Ryan W McCreery; Meredith Spratford; Jacob J Oleson; John Van Buren; Ruth Bentler; Patricia Roush; Mary Pat Moeller Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2015 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Emily C Thompson; Carlos R Benítez-Barrera; Gina P Angley; Tiffany Woynaroski; Anne Marie Tharpe Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 2.297