Literature DB >> 19390173

Hybrid 10 clinical trial: preliminary results.

Bruce J Gantz1, Marlan R Hansen, Christopher W Turner, Jacob J Oleson, Lina A Reiss, Aaron J Parkinson.   

Abstract

Acoustic plus electric (electric-acoustic) speech processing has been successful in highlighting the important role of articulation information in consonant recognition in those adults that have profound high-frequency hearing loss at frequencies greater than 1500 Hz and less than 60% discrimination scores. Eighty-seven subjects were enrolled in an adult Hybrid multicenter Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. Immediate hearing preservation was accomplished in 85/87 subjects. Over time (3 months to 5 years), some hearing preservation was maintained in 91% of the group. Combined electric-acoustic processing enabled most of this group of volunteers to gain improved speech understanding, compared to their preoperative hearing, with bilateral hearing aids. Most have preservation of low-frequency acoustic hearing within 15 dB of their preoperative pure tone levels. Those with greater losses (>30 dB) also benefited from the combination of electric-acoustic speech processing. Postoperatively, in the electric-acoustic processing condition, loss of low-frequency hearing did not correlate with improvements in speech perception scores in quiet. Sixteen subjects were identified as poor performers in that they did not achieve a significant improvement through electric-acoustic processing. A multiple regression analysis determined that 91% of the variance in the poorly performing group can be explained by the preoperative speech recognition score and duration of deafness. Signal-to-noise ratios for speech understanding in noise improved more than 9 dB in some individuals in the electric-acoustic processing condition. The relation between speech understanding in noise thresholds and residual low-frequency acoustic hearing is significant (r = 0.62; p < 0.05). The data suggest that, in general, the advantages gained for speech recognition in noise by preserving residual hearing exist, unless the hearing loss approaches profound levels. Preservation of residual low-frequency hearing should be considered when expanding candidate selection criteria for standard cochlear implants. Duration of profound high-frequency hearing loss appears to be an important variable when determining selection criteria for the Hybrid implant. (c) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19390173      PMCID: PMC3010181          DOI: 10.1159/000206493

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


  17 in total

1.  Effects of furosemide applied chronically to the round window: a model of metabolic presbyacusis.

Authors:  Richard A Schmiedt; Hainan Lang; Hiro-oki Okamura; Bradley A Schulte
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2002-11-01       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  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

3.  Multivariate predictors of success with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B J Gantz; G G Woodworth; J F Knutson; P J Abbas; R S Tyler
Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  1993

4.  Single-neuron labeling and chronic cochlear pathology. III. Stereocilia damage and alterations of threshold tuning curves.

Authors:  M C Liberman; L W Dodds
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Wolfgang Gstoettner; Jan Kiefer; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Stefan Pok; Silke Peters; Oliver Adunka
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 1.494

6.  Combining acoustic and electrical speech processing: Iowa/Nucleus hybrid implant.

Authors:  Bruce J Gantz; Christopher Turner
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 1.494

7.  Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired.

Authors:  D Byrne; A Parkinson; P Newall
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  C A Hogan; C W Turner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Combining acoustic and electrical hearing.

Authors:  Bruce J Gantz; Christopher W Turner
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.325

10.  Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Christopher W Turner; Sheryl R Erenberg; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-03-09
View more
  84 in total

1.  Clinical selection criteria for a second cochlear implant for bimodal listeners.

Authors:  Yang-soo Yoon; You-Ree Shin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Multicenter clinical trial of the Nucleus Hybrid S8 cochlear implant: Final outcomes.

Authors:  Bruce J Gantz; Camille Dunn; Jacob Oleson; Marlan Hansen; Aaron Parkinson; Christopher Turner
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  Using Neural Response Telemetry to Monitor Physiological Responses to Acoustic Stimulation in Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Paul J Abbas; Viral D Tejani; Rachel A Scheperle; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Postoperative Electrocochleography from Hybrid Cochlear Implant users: An Alternative Analysis Procedure.

Authors:  Jeong-Seo Kim; Viral D Tejani; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  The Effect of Residual Acoustic Hearing and Adaptation to Uncertainty on Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users: Evidence From Eye-Tracking.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Ashley Farris-Trimble; Michael Seedorff; Hannah Rigler
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  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

7.  Residual hearing preservation using the suprameatal approach for cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Christoph Arnoldner; Wolfgang Gstoettner; Dominik Riss; Jens Wagenblast; Clemens Honeder; Michaela Blineder; Jafar-Sasan Hamzavi; Alexandra Jappel; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2011-08-25       Impact factor: 1.704

8.  Minimum Reporting Standards for Adult Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Oliver F Adunka; Bruce J Gantz; Camille Dunn; Richard K Gurgel; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-03-20       Impact factor: 3.497

9.  The benefits of bimodal hearing: effect of frequency region and acoustic bandwidth.

Authors:  Sterling W Sheffield; René H Gifford
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2014-02-15       Impact factor: 1.854

10.  Benefits of localization and speech perception with multiple noise sources in listeners with a short-electrode cochlear implant.

Authors:  Camille C Dunn; Ann Perreau; Bruce Gantz; Richard S Tyler
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.664

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.