Literature DB >> 19594084

Recognition and localization of speech by adult cochlear implant recipients wearing a digital hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear (bimodal hearing).

Lisa G Potts1, Margaret W Skinner, Ruth A Litovsky, Michael J Strube, Francis Kuk.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of bilateral amplification is now common clinical practice for hearing aid users but not for cochlear implant recipients. In the past, most cochlear implant recipients were implanted in one ear and wore only a monaural cochlear implant processor. There has been recent interest in benefits arising from bilateral stimulation that may be present for cochlear implant recipients. One option for bilateral stimulation is the use of a cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the opposite nonimplanted ear (bimodal hearing).
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the effect of wearing a cochlear implant in one ear and a digital hearing aid in the opposite ear on speech recognition and localization. RESEARCH
DESIGN: A repeated-measures correlational study was completed. STUDY SAMPLE: Nineteen adult Cochlear Nucleus 24 implant recipients participated in the study. INTERVENTION: The participants were fit with a Widex Senso Vita 38 hearing aid to achieve maximum audibility and comfort within their dynamic range. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Soundfield thresholds, loudness growth, speech recognition, localization, and subjective questionnaires were obtained six-eight weeks after the hearing aid fitting. Testing was completed in three conditions: hearing aid only, cochlear implant only, and cochlear implant and hearing aid (bimodal). All tests were repeated four weeks after the first test session. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to analyze the data. Significant effects were further examined using pairwise comparison of means or in the case of continuous moderators, regression analyses. The speech-recognition and localization tasks were unique, in that a speech stimulus presented from a variety of roaming azimuths (140 degree loudspeaker array) was used.
RESULTS: Performance in the bimodal condition was significantly better for speech recognition and localization compared to the cochlear implant-only and hearing aid-only conditions. Performance was also different between these conditions when the location (i.e., side of the loudspeaker array that presented the word) was analyzed. In the bimodal condition, the speech-recognition and localization tasks were equal regardless of which side of the loudspeaker array presented the word, while performance was significantly poorer for the monaural conditions (hearing aid only and cochlear implant only) when the words were presented on the side with no stimulation. Binaural loudness summation of 1-3 dB was seen in soundfield thresholds and loudness growth in the bimodal condition. Measures of the audibility of sound with the hearing aid, including unaided thresholds, soundfield thresholds, and the Speech Intelligibility Index, were significant moderators of speech recognition and localization. Based on the questionnaire responses, participants showed a strong preference for bimodal stimulation.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that a well-fit digital hearing aid worn in conjunction with a cochlear implant is beneficial to speech recognition and localization. The dynamic test procedures used in this study illustrate the importance of bilateral hearing for locating, identifying, and switching attention between multiple speakers. It is recommended that unilateral cochlear implant recipients, with measurable unaided hearing thresholds, be fit with a hearing aid.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19594084      PMCID: PMC2876351          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.20.6.4

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


  74 in total

1.  An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.

Authors:  Chris J James; Margaret W Skinner; Lois F A Martin; Laura K Holden; Karyn L Galvin; Timothy A Holden; Lesley Whitford
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Margaret W Skinner; Timothy A Holden; Marilyn E Demorest
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Richard J M van Hoesel; Richard S Tyler
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Hearing speech against spatially separate competing speech versus competing noise.

Authors:  William Noble; Stephen Perrett
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2002-11

5.  Sound localization in bilateral users of MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ cochlear implants.

Authors:  P Nopp; P Schleich; P D'Haese
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Speech perception with a cochlear implant used in conjunction with a hearing aid in the opposite ear.

Authors:  Jafar Hamzavi; Stefan Marcel Pok; Wolfgang Gstoettner; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.117

7.  Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears.

Authors:  Teresa Y C Ching; Paula Incerti; Mandy Hill
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 8.  Optimizing cochlear implant speech performance.

Authors:  Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  2003-09

9.  Interaural asymmetry of hearing loss, Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) disabilities, and handicap.

Authors:  William Noble; Stuart Gatehouse
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.117

10.  The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ).

Authors:  Stuart Gatehouse; William Noble
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.117

View more
  50 in total

1.  Effects of Removing Low-Frequency Electric Information on Speech Perception With Bimodal Hearing.

Authors:  Jennifer R Fowler; Jessica L Eggleston; Kelly M Reavis; Garnett P McMillan; Lina A J Reiss
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.297

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 hearing aid frequency response fittings in pediatric and young adult bimodal recipients.

Authors:  Lisa S Davidson; Jill B Firszt; Chris Brenner; Jamie H Cadieux
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  Early Speech Perception Test Outcome in Children with Severe Sensorineural Hearing Loss with Unilateral Cochlear Implants Alone versus Bimodal Stimulation.

Authors:  Ajith Nilakantan; Poonam Raj; Sachin Saini; Ruchika Mittal
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-05-14

5.  An analysis of hearing aid fittings in adults using cochlear implants and contralateral hearing aids.

Authors:  Michael S Harris; Marcia Hay-McCutcheon
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.325

6.  Speech Understanding in Noise for Adults With Cochlear Implants: Effects of Hearing Configuration, Source Location Certainty, and Head Movement.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Louise Loiselle; Sarah Natale; Sterling W Sheffield; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Mary S Dietrich; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  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

8.  Cochlear implantation in nontraditional candidates: preliminary results in adolescents with asymmetric hearing loss.

Authors:  Jamie H Cadieux; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Bimodal Hearing or Bilateral Cochlear Implants? Ask the Patient.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Two ears and two (or more?) devices: a pediatric case study of bilateral profound hearing loss.

Authors:  Rosalie M Uchanski; Lisa S Davidson; Sharon Quadrizius; Ruth Reeder; Jamie Cadieux; Jerrica Kettel; Richard A Chole
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2009-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.