Literature DB >> 23632973

Effect of hearing aid bandwidth on speech recognition performance of listeners using a cochlear implant and contralateral hearing aid (bimodal hearing).

Arlene C Neuman1, Mario A Svirsky.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine how the bandwidth of the hearing aid (HA) fitting affects bimodal speech recognition of listeners with a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and severe-to-profound hearing loss in the unimplanted ear (but with residual hearing sufficient for wideband amplification using National Acoustic Laboratories Revised, Profound [NAL-RP] prescriptive guidelines; unaided thresholds no poorer than 95 dB HL through 2000 Hz).
DESIGN: Recognition of sentence material in quiet and in noise was measured with the CI alone and with CI plus HA as the amplification provided by the HA in the high and mid-frequency regions was systematically reduced from the wideband condition (NAL-RP prescription). Modified bandwidths included upper frequency cutoffs of 2000, 1000, or 500 Hz.
RESULTS: On average, significant bimodal benefit was obtained when the HA provided amplification at all frequencies with aidable residual hearing. Limiting the HA bandwidth to only low-frequency amplification (below 1000 Hz) did not yield significant improvements in performance over listening with the CI alone.
CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest the importance of providing amplification across as wide a frequency region as permitted by audiometric thresholds in the HA used by bimodal users.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23632973      PMCID: PMC3748228          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31828e86e8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  35 in total

1.  Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss.

Authors:  C W Turner; K J Cummings
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 1.493

2.  Effects of low-pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies.

Authors:  D A Vickers; B C Moore; T Baer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  The relative phonetic contributions of a cochlear implant and residual acoustic hearing to bimodal speech perception.

Authors:  Benjamin M Sheffield; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Rene H Gifford; Anthony J Spahr; Sharon A McKarns
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 1.854

5.  Maximizing effective audibility in hearing aid fitting.

Authors:  T Y Ching; H Dillon; R Katsch; D Byrne
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Dead regions in the cochlea: diagnosis, perceptual consequences, and implications for the fitting of hearing AIDS.

Authors:  B C Moore
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2001-03

Review 7.  Clinical protocols for hearing instrument fitting in the Desired Sensation Level method.

Authors:  Marlene Bagatto; Sheila Moodie; Susan Scollie; Richard Seewald; Shane Moodie; John Pumford; K P Rachel Liu
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2005

8.  A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility.

Authors:  Earl E Johnson; Harvey Dillon
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  Bimodal hearing benefit for speech recognition with competing voice in cochlear implant subject with normal hearing in contralateral ear.

Authors:  Helen E Cullington; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  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

View more
  22 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.  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

3.  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

4.  Quality of life in bimodal hearing users (unilateral cochlear implants and contralateral hearing aids).

Authors:  A Farinetti; S Roman; J Mancini; K Baumstarck-Barrau; R Meller; J P Lavieille; J M Triglia
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  The Effect of Binaural Beamforming Technology on Speech Intelligibility in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Jantien L Vroegop; Nienke C Homans; André Goedegebure; J Gertjan Dingemanse; Teun van Immerzeel; Marc P van der Schroeff
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  The Effect of Hearing Aid Bandwidth and Configuration of Hearing Loss on Bimodal Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Arlene C Neuman; Annette Zeman; Jonathan Neukam; Binhuan Wang; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  The role of continuous low-frequency harmonicity cues for interrupted speech perception in bimodal hearing.

Authors:  Soo Hee Oh; Gail S Donaldson; Ying-Yee Kong
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Effect of Microphone Configuration and Sound Source Location on Speech Recognition for Adult Cochlear Implant Users with Current-Generation Sound Processors.

Authors:  Robert T Dwyer; Jillian Roberts; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2020-04-27       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  Identification of acoustically similar and dissimilar vowels in profoundly deaf adults who use hearing aids and/or cochlear implants: some preliminary findings.

Authors:  Marcia J Hay-McCutcheon; Nathaniel R Peterson; Christian A Rosado; David B Pisoni
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.493

10.  Cochlear implant microphone location affects speech recognition in diffuse noise.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Kolberg; Sterling W Sheffield; Timothy J Davis; Linsey W Sunderhaus; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 1.664

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.