PURPOSE: To compare the effects of conventional amplification (CA) and digital frequency compression (DFC) amplification on the speech recognition abilities of candidates for a partial-insertion cochlear implant, that is, candidates for combined electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS). METHOD: The participants were 6 patients whose audiometric thresholds at 500 Hz and below were <or=60 dB HL and whose thresholds at 2000 Hz and above were >or=80 dB HL. Six tests of speech understanding were administered with CA and DFC. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was also administered following use of CA and DFC. RESULTS: Group mean scores were not statistically different in the CA and DFC conditions. However, 2 patients received substantial benefit in DFC conditions. APHAB scores suggested increased ease of communication, but also increased aversive sound quality. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that a relatively small proportion of individuals who meet EAS candidacy will receive substantial benefit from a DFC hearing aid and that a larger proportion will receive at least a small benefit when speech is presented against a background of noise. This benefit, however, comes at a cost-aversive sound quality.
PURPOSE: To compare the effects of conventional amplification (CA) and digital frequency compression (DFC) amplification on the speech recognition abilities of candidates for a partial-insertion cochlear implant, that is, candidates for combined electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS). METHOD: The participants were 6 patients whose audiometric thresholds at 500 Hz and below were <or=60 dB HL and whose thresholds at 2000 Hz and above were >or=80 dB HL. Six tests of speech understanding were administered with CA and DFC. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was also administered following use of CA and DFC. RESULTS: Group mean scores were not statistically different in the CA and DFC conditions. However, 2 patients received substantial benefit in DFC conditions. APHAB scores suggested increased ease of communication, but also increased aversive sound quality. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that a relatively small proportion of individuals who meet EAS candidacy will receive substantial benefit from a DFC hearing aid and that a larger proportion will receive at least a small benefit when speech is presented against a background of noise. This benefit, however, comes at a cost-aversive sound quality.
Authors: C von Ilberg; J Kiefer; J Tillein; T Pfenningdorff; R Hartmann; E Stürzebecher; R Klinke Journal: ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec Date: 1999 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.538
Authors: Rosalie M Uchanski; Lisa S Davidson; Sharon Quadrizius; Ruth Reeder; Jamie Cadieux; Jerrica Kettel; Richard A Chole Journal: Trends Amplif Date: 2009-06
Authors: Jie Min Soh; Vishal Deepak D'Souza; Gopal Krishna Sarepaka; Win Nie Ng; Chun Suan Ong; Wong Kein Low Journal: Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 3.372
Authors: Guilherme Machado de Carvalho; Alexandre C Guimaraes; Alexandre S M Duarte; Eder B Muranaka; Marcelo N Soki; Renata S Zanotello Martins; Walter A Bianchini; Jorge R Paschoal; Arthur M Castilho Journal: Int J Otolaryngol Date: 2013-03-17