Literature DB >> 18453885

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

Camille C Dunn1, Richard S Tyler, Sarah Oakley, Bruce J Gantz, William Noble.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this investigation was to compare speech recognition and localization performance of subjects who wear bilateral cochlear implants (CICI) with subjects who wear a unilateral cochlear implant (true CI-only).
DESIGN: A total of 73 subjects participated in this study. Specifically, of the 73 subjects, 64 (32 CICI and 32 true CI-only) participated in the word recognition testing; 66 (33 CICI and 33 true CI-only) participated in the sentence recognition testing; and 24 (12 CICI and 12 true CI-only) participated in the localization testing. Because of time constraints not all subjects completed all testing. The average age at implantation for the CICI and true CI-only listeners who participated in the speech perception testing was 54 and 55 yrs, respectively, and the average duration of deafness was 8 yrs for both groups of listeners. The average age at implantation for the CICI and true CI-only listeners who participated in the localization testing was 54 and 53 yrs, respectively, and the average duration of deafness was 10 yrs for the CICI listeners and 11 yrs for the true CI-only listeners. All speech stimuli were presented from the front. The test setup for everyday-sound localization comprised an eight-speaker array spanning, an arc of approximately 108 degrees in the frontal horizontal plane.
RESULTS: Average group results were transformed to Rationalized Arcsine Unit scores. A comparison in performance between the CICI score and the true CI-only score in quiet revealed a significant difference between the two groups with the CICI group scoring 19% higher for sentences and 24% higher for words. In addition, when both cochlear implants were used together (CICI) rather than when either cochlear implant was used alone (right CI or left CI) for the CICI listeners, results indicated a significant binaural summation effect for sentences and words.
CONCLUSION: The average group results in this study showed significantly greater benefit on words and sentences in quiet and localization for listeners using two cochlear implants over those using only one cochlear implant. One explanation of this result might be that the same information from both sides are combined, which results in a better representation of the stimulus. A second explanation might be that CICI allow for the transfer of different neural information from two damaged peripheral auditory systems leading to different patterns of information summating centrally resulting in enhanced speech perception. A future study using similar methodology to the current one will have to be conducted to determine if listeners with two cochlear implants are able to perform better than listeners with one cochlear implant in noise.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18453885      PMCID: PMC4266575          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e318167b870

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  22 in total

1.  Sound-direction identification, interaural time delay discrimination, and speech intelligibility advantages in noise for a bilateral cochlear implant user.

Authors:  Richard Van Hoesel; Richard Ramsden; Martin Odriscoll
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Speech understanding in quiet and noise in bilateral users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ cochlear implant system.

Authors:  Joachim Müller; F Schön; J Helms
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Exploring the benefits of bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Richard J M van Hoesel
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.854

4.  Auditory localization abilities in bilateral cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Carl A Verschuur; Mark E Lutman; Richard Ramsden; Paula Greenham; Martin O'Driscoll
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Evaluation of bilaterally implanted adult subjects with the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system.

Authors:  Richard Ramsden; Paula Greenham; Martin O'Driscoll; Deborah Mawman; David Proops; Louise Craddock; Claire Fielden; John Graham; Leah Meerton; Carl Verschuur; Joseph Toner; Cecilia McAnallen; Jonathan Osborne; Maire Doran; Roger Gray; Margaret Pickerill
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.311

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

Authors:  Pascal Senn; Martin Kompis; Mattheus Vischer; Rudolf Haeusler
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2005-08-05       Impact factor: 1.854

7.  Benefits of bilateral cochlear implants and/or hearing aids in children.

Authors:  Ruth Y Litovsky; Patti M Johnstone; Shelly P Godar
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.117

8.  A "rationalized" arcsine transform.

Authors:  G A Studebaker
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1985-09

9.  Benefit of wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear in adult users of a cochlear implant.

Authors:  Camille C Dunn; Richard S Tyler; Shelley A Witt
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Localization ability with bimodal hearing aids and bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Bernhard U Seeber; Uwe Baumann; Hugo Fastl
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  37 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Mapping procedures can produce non-centered auditory images in bilateral cochlear implantees.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Transitioning from bimodal to bilateral cochlear implant listening: speech recognition and localization in four individuals.

Authors:  Lisa G Potts; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.493

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation: speech perception and localization pre- and post-second cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Camille C Dunn; Richard S Tyler; Shelley Witt; Haihong Ji; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2012-07-30       Impact factor: 1.493

9.  Bilateral cochlear implantation in the ferret: a novel animal model for behavioral studies.

Authors:  Douglas E H Hartley; Tara Vongpaisal; Jin Xu; Robert K Shepherd; Andrew J King; Amal Isaiah
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2010-05-31       Impact factor: 2.390

10.  Spoken language benefits of extending cochlear implant candidacy below 12 months of age.

Authors:  Johanna G Nicholas; Ann E Geers
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.311

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.