OBJECTIVES: The authors describe the localization and speech-understanding abilities of a patient fit with bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) for whom acoustic low-frequency hearing was preserved in both cochleae. DESIGN: Three signals were used in the localization experiments: low-pass, high-pass, and wideband noise. Speech understanding was assessed with the AzBio sentences presented in noise. RESULTS: Localization accuracy was best in the aided, bilateral acoustic hearing condition, and was poorer in both the bilateral CI condition and when the bilateral CIs were used in addition to bilateral low-frequency hearing. Speech understanding was best when low-frequency acoustic hearing was combined with at least one CI. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found that (1) for sound source localization in patients with bilateral CIs and bilateral hearing preservation, interaural level difference cues may dominate interaural time difference cues and (2) hearing-preservation surgery can be of benefit to patients fit with bilateral CIs.
OBJECTIVES: The authors describe the localization and speech-understanding abilities of a patient fit with bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) for whom acoustic low-frequency hearing was preserved in both cochleae. DESIGN: Three signals were used in the localization experiments: low-pass, high-pass, and wideband noise. Speech understanding was assessed with the AzBio sentences presented in noise. RESULTS: Localization accuracy was best in the aided, bilateral acoustic hearing condition, and was poorer in both the bilateral CI condition and when the bilateral CIs were used in addition to bilateral low-frequency hearing. Speech understanding was best when low-frequency acoustic hearing was combined with at least one CI. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found that (1) for sound source localization in patients with bilateral CIs and bilateral hearing preservation, interaural level difference cues may dominate interaural time difference cues and (2) hearing-preservation surgery can be of benefit to patients fit with bilateral CIs.
Authors: Jan Kiefer; Wolfgang Gstoettner; Wolfgang Baumgartner; Stephan Marcel Pok; Jochen Tillein; Qing Ye; Christoph von Ilberg Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 1.494
Authors: Emily Buss; Harold C Pillsbury; Craig A Buchman; Carol H Pillsbury; Marcia S Clark; David S Haynes; Robert F Labadie; Susan Amberg; Peter S Roland; Pamela Kruger; Michael A Novak; Julie A Wirth; Jennifer M Black; Robert Peters; Jennifer Lake; P Ashley Wackym; Jill B Firszt; Blake S Wilson; Dewey T Lawson; Reinhold Schatzer; Patrick S C D'Haese; Amy L Barco Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: C von Ilberg; J Kiefer; J Tillein; T Pfenningdorff; R Hartmann; E Stürzebecher; R Klinke Journal: ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec Date: 1999 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.538
Authors: George B Wanna; Jack H Noble; Rene H Gifford; Mary S Dietrich; Alex D Sweeney; Dongqing Zhang; Benoit M Dawant; Alejandro Rivas; Robert F Labadie Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.311
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
Authors: René H Gifford; D Wesley Grantham; Sterling W Sheffield; Timothy J Davis; Robert Dwyer; Michael F Dorman Journal: Hear Res Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 3.208
Authors: René H Gifford; Colin L W Driscoll; Timothy J Davis; Pam Fiebig; Alan Micco; Michael F Dorman Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: René H Gifford; Timothy J Davis; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Christine Menapace; Barbara Buck; Jillian Crosson; Lori O'Neill; Anne Beiter; Phil Segel Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2017 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Michael F Dorman; Louise H Loiselle; Sarah J Cook; William A Yost; René H Gifford Journal: Audiol Neurootol Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 1.854