Literature DB >> 20616759

Cochlear implant characteristics and speech perception skills of adolescents with long-term device use.

Lisa S Davidson1, Ann E Geers, Christine Brenner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Updated cochlear implant technology and optimized fitting can have a substantial impact on speech perception. The effects of upgrades in processor technology and aided thresholds on word recognition at soft input levels and sentence recognition in noise were examined. We hypothesized that updated speech processors and lower aided thresholds would allow improved recognition of soft speech without compromising performance in noise. STUDY
DESIGN: 109 teenagers who had used a Nucleus 22-cochlear implant since preschool were tested with their current speech processor(s) (101 unilateral and 8 bilateral): 13 used the Spectra, 22 the ESPrit 22, 61 the ESPrit 3G, and 13 the Freedom. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Lexical Neighborhood Test (LNT) was administered at 70 and 50 dB SPL and the Bamford Kowal Bench sentences were administered in quiet and in noise. Aided thresholds were obtained for frequency-modulated tones from 250 to 4,000 Hz. Results were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance.
RESULTS: Aided thresholds for the Freedom/3G group were significantly lower (better) than the Spectra/Sprint group. LNT scores at 50 dB were significantly higher for the Freedom/3G group. No significant differences between the 2 groups were found for the LNT at 70 or sentences in quiet or noise.
CONCLUSION: Adolescents using updated processors that allowed for aided detection thresholds of 30 dB HL or better performed the best at soft levels. The BKB in noise results suggest that greater access to soft speech does not compromise listening in noise.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20616759      PMCID: PMC3157082          DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181eb320c

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  17 in total

1.  Effects of the acoustical dynamic range on speech recognition with cochlear implants.

Authors:  G Cosendai; M Pelizzone
Journal:  Audiology       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct

2.  Adaptive dynamic range optimization for cochlear implants: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Chris J James; Peter J Blamey; Lois Martin; Brett Swanson; Yvette Just; David Macfarlane
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Benefits of syllabic input compression for users of cochlear implants.

Authors:  Hugh J McDermott; Katherine R Henshall; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Ginger Grant; John Niparko; John Galvin; Robert Shannon; Jane Opie; Phil Segel
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Speech recognition with the advanced combination encoder and transient emphasis spectral maxima strategies in nucleus 24 recipients.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Andrew E Vandali; Margaret W Skinner; Marios S Fourakis; Timothy A Holden
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Effect of increased IIDR in the nucleus freedom cochlear implant system.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Margaret W Skinner; Marios S Fourakis; Timothy A Holden
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the multipeak (MPEAK) and spectral peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies II. Consonants.

Authors:  M W Skinner; M S Fourakis; T A Holden; L K Holden; M E Demorest
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Factors associated with development of speech perception skills in children implanted by age five.

Authors:  Ann Geers; Chris Brenner; Lisa Davidson
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Children with minimal sensorineural hearing loss: prevalence, educational performance, and functional status.

Authors:  F H Bess; J Dodd-Murphy; R A Parker
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  The effect of instantaneous input dynamic range setting on the speech perception of children with the nucleus 24 implant.

Authors:  Lisa S Davidson; Margaret W Skinner; Beth A Holstad; Beverly T Fears; Marie K Richter; Margaret Matusofsky; Christine Brenner; Timothy Holden; Amy Birath; Jerrica L Kettel; Susan Scollie
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  9 in total

1.  Factors contributing to speech perception scores in long-term pediatric cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Lisa S Davidson; Ann E Geers; Peter J Blamey; Emily A Tobey; Christine A Brenner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  A longitudinal study of speech perception skills and device characteristics of adolescent cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Robinson; Lisa S Davidson; Rosalie M Uchanski; Christine M Brenner; Ann E Geers
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  Interdependence of linguistic and indexical speech perception skills in school-age children with early cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Ann E Geers; Lisa S Davidson; Rosalie M Uchanski; Johanna G Nicholas
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  The Effects of Acoustic Bandwidth on Simulated Bimodal Benefit in Children and Adults with Normal Hearing.

Authors:  Sterling W Sheffield; Michelle Simha; Kelly N Jahn; René H Gifford
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Benefits from upgrade to the CP810 sound processor for Nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Isabelle Mosnier; Mathieu Marx; Frederic Venail; Natalie Loundon; Samantha Roux-Vaillard; Olivier Sterkers
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Self-monitoring of listening abilities in normal-hearing children, normal-hearing adults, and children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ann M Rothpletz; Frederic L Wightman; Doris J Kistler
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Effects of Early Auditory Deprivation on Working Memory and Reasoning Abilities in Verbal and Visuospatial Domains for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Lisa S Davidson; Ann E Geers; Sandra Hale; Mitchell M Sommers; Christine Brenner; Brent Spehar
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Enduring advantages of early cochlear implantation for spoken language development.

Authors:  Ann E Geers; Johanna G Nicholas
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 2.297

9.  Impacts of signal processing factors on perceptual restoration in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Brittany N Jaekel; Sarah Weinstein; Rochelle S Newman; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 2.482

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.