Literature DB >> 18212519

Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs.

René H Gifford1, Jon K Shallop, Anna Mary Peterson.   

Abstract

Cochlear implant recipients have demonstrated remarkable increases in speech perception since US FDA approval was granted in 1984. Improved performance is due to a number of factors including improved cochlear implant technology, evolving speech coding strategies, and individuals with increasingly more residual hearing receiving implants. Despite this evolution, the same recommendations for pre- and postimplant speech recognition testing have been in place for over 10 years in the United States. To determine whether new recommendations are warranted, speech perception performance was assessed for 156 adult, postlingually deafened implant recipients as well as 50 hearing aid users on monosyllabic word recognition (CNC) and sentence recognition in quiet (HINT and AzBio sentences) and in noise (BKB-SIN). Results demonstrated that for HINT sentences in quiet, 28% of the subjects tested achieved maximum performance of 100% correct and that scores did not agree well with monosyllables (CNC) or sentence recognition in noise (BKB-SIN). For a more difficult sentence recognition material (AzBio), only 0.7% of the subjects achieved 100% performance and scores were in much better agreement with monosyllables and sentence recognition in noise. These results suggest that more difficult materials are needed to assess speech perception performance of postimplant patients - and perhaps also for determining implant candidacy. (c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18212519     DOI: 10.1159/000113510

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


  107 in total

1.  Current research with cochlear implants at Arizona State University.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Anthony Spahr; Rene H Gifford; Sarah Cook; Ting Zhang; Louise Loiselle; William Yost; Lara Cardy; JoAnne Whittingham; David Schramm
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Use of Adult Patient Focus Groups to Develop the Initial Item Bank for a Cochlear Implant Quality-of-Life Instrument.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Craig A Velozo; Meredith A Holcomb; Elizabeth L Camposeo; Jonathan L Hatch; Ted A Meyer; Paul R Lambert; Cathy L Melvin; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 6.223

3.  Assessing spoken word recognition in children who are deaf or hard of hearing: a translational approach.

Authors:  Karen Iler Kirk; Lindsay Prusick; Brian French; Chad Gotch; Laurie S Eisenberg; Nancy Young
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Rene H Gifford
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 2.117

7.  Evaluation of TIMIT sentence list equivalency with adult cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Sarah E King; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Laura K Holden; Michael Strube
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.664

8.  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

9.  Some factors underlying individual differences in speech recognition on PRESTO: a first report.

Authors:  Terrin N Tamati; Jaimie L Gilbert; David B Pisoni
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2013 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.664

10.  Validation of a clinical assessment of spectral-ripple resolution for cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ward R Drennan; Elizabeth S Anderson; Jong Ho Won; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.