Literature DB >> 22533974

Optimization of programming parameters in children with the advanced bionics cochlear implant.

Jacquelyn Baudhuin1, Jamie Cadieux, Jill B Firszt, Ruth M Reeder, Jerrica L Maxson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cochlear implants provide access to soft intensity sounds and therefore improved audibility for children with severe-to-profound hearing loss. Speech processor programming parameters, such as threshold (or T-level), input dynamic range (IDR), and microphone sensitivity, contribute to the recipient's program and influence audibility. When soundfield thresholds obtained through the speech processor are elevated, programming parameters can be modified to improve soft sound detection. Adult recipients show improved detection for low-level sounds when T-levels are set at raised levels and show better speech understanding in quiet when wider IDRs are used. Little is known about the effects of parameter settings on detection and speech recognition in children using today's cochlear implant technology.
PURPOSE: The overall study aim was to assess optimal T-level, IDR, and sensitivity settings in pediatric recipients of the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant. RESEARCH
DESIGN: Two experiments were conducted. Experiment 1 examined the effects of two T-level settings on soundfield thresholds and detection of the Ling 6 sounds. One program set T-levels at 10% of most comfortable levels (M-levels) and another at 10 current units (CUs) below the level judged as "soft." Experiment 2 examined the effects of IDR and sensitivity settings on speech recognition in quiet and noise. STUDY SAMPLE: Participants were 11 children 7-17 yr of age (mean 11.3) implanted with the Advanced Bionics High Resolution 90K or CII cochlear implant system who had speech recognition scores of 20% or greater on a monosyllabic word test. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two T-level programs were compared for detection of the Ling sounds and frequency modulated (FM) tones. Differing IDR/sensitivity programs (50/0, 50/10, 70/0, 70/10) were compared using Ling and FM tone detection thresholds, CNC (consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant) words at 50 dB SPL, and Hearing in Noise Test for Children (HINT-C) sentences at 65 dB SPL in the presence of four-talker babble (+8 signal-to-noise ratio). Outcomes were analyzed using a paired t-test and a mixed-model repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).
RESULTS: T-levels set 10 CUs below "soft" resulted in significantly lower detection thresholds for all six Ling sounds and FM tones at 250, 1000, 3000, 4000, and 6000 Hz. When comparing programs differing by IDR and sensitivity, a 50 dB IDR with a 0 sensitivity setting showed significantly poorer thresholds for low frequency FM tones and voiced Ling sounds. Analysis of group mean scores for CNC words in quiet or HINT-C sentences in noise indicated no significant differences across IDR/sensitivity settings. Individual data, however, showed significant differences between IDR/sensitivity programs in noise; the optimal program differed across participants.
CONCLUSIONS: In pediatric recipients of the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant device, manually setting T-levels with ascending loudness judgments should be considered when possible or when low-level sounds are inaudible. Study findings confirm the need to determine program settings on an individual basis as well as the importance of speech recognition verification measures in both quiet and noise. Clinical guidelines are suggested for selection of programming parameters in both young and older children. American Academy of Audiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22533974      PMCID: PMC3426836          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.23.5.2

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


  21 in total

1.  Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant.

Authors:  M W Skinner; L K Holden; T A Holden; M E Demorest
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Evaluation of equivalency in two recordings of monosyllabic words.

Authors:  Margaret W Skinner; Laura K Holden; Marios S Fourakis; John W Hawks; Timothy Holden; Jennifer Arcaroli; Martyn Hyde
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  Critical difference table for word recognition testing derived using computer simulation.

Authors:  Edward Carney; Robert S Schlauch
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  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

5.  Clinical evaluation of expanded input dynamic range in Nucleus cochlear implants.

Authors:  P W Dawson; A E Vandali; M R Knight; J M Heasman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests.

Authors:  G E PETERSON; I LEHISTE
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1962-02

7.  Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants.

Authors:  M W Skinner; L K Holden; T A Holden; M E Demorest; M S Fourakis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Voice fundamental frequency as an auditory supplement to the speechreading of sentences.

Authors:  A Boothroyd; T Hnath-Chisolm; L Hanin; L Kishon-Rabin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children.

Authors:  J Bench; A Kowal; J Bamford
Journal:  Br J Audiol       Date:  1979-08

10.  Performance of patients using different cochlear implant systems: effects of input dynamic range.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman; Louise H Loiselle
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  8 in total

1.  Evaluation of a New Algorithm to Optimize Audibility in Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Noël Y Dwyer; Amy L Stein; Leo M Litvak
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Electrically Evoked Auditory Event-Related Responses in Patients with Auditory Brainstem Implants: Morphological Characteristics, Test-Retest Reliability, Effects of Stimulation Level, and Association with Auditory Detection.

Authors:  Shuman He; Tyler C McFayden; Holly F B Teagle; Matthew Ewend; Lillian Henderson; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Hearing versus Listening: Attention to Speech and Its Role in Language Acquisition in Deaf Infants with Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Derek M Houston; Tonya R Bergeson
Journal:  Lingua       Date:  2014-01-01

4.  Programming characteristics of cochlear implants in children: effects of aetiology and age at implantation.

Authors:  Paola V Incerti; Teresa Y C Ching; Sanna Hou; Patricia Van Buynder; Christopher Flynn; Robert Cowan
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2017-09-08       Impact factor: 2.117

5.  Dynamics of infant cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) for tone and speech tokens.

Authors:  Barbara Cone; Richard Whitaker
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-05-27       Impact factor: 1.675

Review 6.  Cochlear Implantation for Children and Adults with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Lavin K Entwisle; Sarah E Warren; Jessica J Messersmith
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2018-10-26

Review 7.  The Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential: From Laboratory to Clinic.

Authors:  Shuman He; Holly F B Teagle; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-06-23       Impact factor: 4.677

8.  The Estimated Electrode-Neuron Interface in Cochlear Implant Listeners Is Different for Early-Implanted Children and Late-Implanted Adults.

Authors:  Mishaela DiNino; Gabrielle O'Brien; Steven M Bierer; Kelly N Jahn; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-03-25
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.