Literature DB >> 19253815

A daily alternating method for comparing different signal-processing strategies in hearing aids and in cochlear implants.

Richard S Tyler1, Shelley A Witt, Camille C Dunn, Ann E Perreau.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although we always want to select the best signal-processing strategy for our hearing-aid and cochlear-implant patients, no efficient and valid procedure is available. Comparisons in the office are without listening experience, and short-term take-home trials are likely influenced by the order of strategies tried.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a new procedure for comparing signal-processing strategies whereby patients listen with one strategy one day and another strategy the next day. They continue this daily comparison for several weeks. We determined (1) if differences existed between strategies without prior listening experience and (2) if performance differences (or lack there of) obtained at the first listening experience are consistent with performance after two to three months of alternating between strategies on a daily basis (equal listening experience). RESEARCH
DESIGN: Eight subjects were tested pretrial with a vowel, sentence, and spondee recognition test, a localization task, and a quality rating test. They were required to listen to one of two different signal processing strategies alternating between strategies on a daily basis. After one to three months of listening, subjects returned for follow-up testing. Additionally, subjects were asked to make daily ratings and comments in a diary.
RESULTS: Pre-trial (no previous listening experience), a clear trend favoring one strategy was observed in four subjects. Four other subjects showed no clear advantage. Post-trial (after alternating daily between strategies), of the four subjects who showed a clear advantage for one signal processing strategy, only one subject showed that same advantage. One subject ended up with an advantage for the other strategy. Post-trial, of the four subjects who showed no advantage for a particular signal processing strategy, three did show an advantage for one strategy over the other.
CONCLUSION: Patients are willing to alternate between signal processing strategies on a daily basis for up to three months in an attempt to determine their optimal strategy. Although some patients showed superior performance with initial fittings (and some did not), the results of pre-trial comparison did not always persist after having equal listening experience. We recommend this daily alternating listening technique when there is interest in determining optimal performance among different signal processing strategies when fitting hearing aids or cochlear implants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19253815      PMCID: PMC2695396          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.19.5.7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  13 in total

1.  Performance of compressed analogue (CA) and continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) coding strategies for cochlear implants in quiet and noise.

Authors:  M Kompis; M W Vischer; R Häusler
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 1.494

2.  Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2004-05

3.  Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Christopher W Turner; Bruce J Gantz; Corina Vidal; Amy Behrens; Belinda A Henry
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Phonetic training with acoustic cue manipulations: a comparison of methods for teaching English /r/-/l/ to Japanese adults.

Authors:  Paul Iverson; Valerie Hazan; Kerry Bannister
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Effects of converting bilateral cochlear implant subjects to a strategy with increased rate and number of channels.

Authors:  Camille C Dunn; Richard S Tyler; Shelley A Witt; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 1.547

6.  Auditory training with spectrally shifted speech: implications for cochlear implant patient auditory rehabilitation.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; Geraldine Nogaki; John J Galvin
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-06-10

7.  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

8.  Open earmold fittings for improving aided auditory localization for sensorineural hearing losses with good high-frequency hearing.

Authors:  D Byrne; S Sinclair; W Noble
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Speech perception performance in experienced cochlear-implant patients receiving the SPEAK processing strategy in the Nucleus Spectra-22 cochlear implant.

Authors:  A J Parkinson; W S Parkinson; R S Tyler; M W Lowder; B J Gantz
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Training-induced plasticity of auditory localization in adult mammals.

Authors:  Oliver Kacelnik; Fernando R Nodal; Carl H Parsons; Andrew J King
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2006-03-07       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  1 in total

1.  A Series of Case Studies of Tinnitus Suppression With Mixed Background Stimuli in a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  Richard S Tyler; A J Keiner; Kurt Walker; Aniruddha K Deshpande; Shelley Witt; Matthijs Killian; Helena Ji; Jim Patrick; Norbert Dillier; Pim van Dijk; Wai Kong Lai; Marlan R Hansen; Bruce Gantz
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.493

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.