Literature DB >> 24244874

THE PSYCHOPHYSICS OF LOW-FREQUENCY ACOUSTIC HEARING IN ELECTRIC AND ACOUSTIC STIMULATION (EAS) AND BIMODAL PATIENTS.

Rene H Gifford1, Michael F Dorman.   

Abstract

This paper provides a review of the current literature on psychophysical properties of low-frequency hearing, both before and after implantation, with a focus on frequency selectivity, nonlinear cochlear processing, and speech perception in temporally modulated maskers for bimodal listeners as well as patients with hearing preservation in the implanted ear and receiving combined electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS). In this paper we review our work, the work of others, and report results not previously published for speech perception in steady-state and temporally fluctuating maskers; the degree of masking release and frequency resolution for 11 bimodal, 6 hearing preservation patients; and 5 control subjects with normal hearing. The results demonstrate that a small masking release is possible with acoustic hearing in just one ear, with the degree of masking release being correlated with the low-frequency pure tone average in the non-implanted ear; furthermore, frequency selectivity as defined by the width of the auditory filter was not correlated with the degree of masking release. Descriptions of the clinical utility of hearing preservation in the implanted ear for improving speech perception in complex listening environments, as well as directions for the future, are discussed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cochlear implant; electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS); hearing preservation; masking release

Year:  2012        PMID: 24244874      PMCID: PMC3826558     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hear Sci        ISSN: 2083-389X


  68 in total

Review 1.  Cochlear implants: some likely next steps.

Authors:  Blake S Wilson; Dewey T Lawson; Joachim M Muller; Richard S Tyler; Jan Kiefer
Journal:  Annu Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2003-04-16       Impact factor: 9.590

2.  Frequency selectivity in workers with noise-induced hearing loss.

Authors:  C Laroche; R Hétu; H T Quoc; B Josserand; B Glasberg
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Partial deafness cochlear implantation provides benefit to a new population of individuals with hearing loss.

Authors:  Henryk Skarzynski; Artur Lorens; Anna Piotrowska; Ilona Anderson
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.494

4.  Unintelligible low-frequency sound enhances simulated cochlear-implant speech recognition in noise.

Authors:  Janice E Chang; John Y Bai; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.538

5.  Psychophysical studies with two binaural cochlear implant subjects.

Authors:  R J van Hoesel; G M Clark
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Conservation of residual acoustic hearing after cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Thomas J Balkany; Sarah S Connell; Annelle V Hodges; Stacy L Payne; Fred F Telischi; Adrien A Eshraghi; Simon I Angeli; Ross Germani; Sarah Messiah; Kristopher L Arheart
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 7.  The Hybrid cochlear implant: a review.

Authors:  Erika A Woodson; Lina A J Reiss; Christopher W Turner; Kate Gfeller; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-11-25

8.  Benefits of localization and speech perception with multiple noise sources in listeners with a short-electrode cochlear implant.

Authors:  Camille C Dunn; Ann Perreau; Bruce Gantz; Richard S Tyler
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  Psychophysical and speech perception studies: a case report on a binaural cochlear implant subject.

Authors:  R J van Hoesel; Y C Tong; R D Hollow; G M Clark
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Hybrid 10 clinical trial: preliminary results.

Authors:  Bruce J Gantz; Marlan R Hansen; Christopher W Turner; Jacob J Oleson; Lina A Reiss; Aaron J Parkinson
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 1.854

View more
  5 in total

1.  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

2.  Availability of binaural cues for bilateral implant recipients and bimodal listeners with and without preserved hearing in the implanted ear.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman; Sterling W Sheffield; Kate Teece; Amy P Olund
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Speech masking release in Hybrid cochlear implant users: Roles of spectral and temporal cues in electric-acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Viral D Tejani; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 4.  Electro-Haptic Stimulation: A New Approach for Improving Cochlear-Implant Listening.

Authors:  Mark D Fletcher; Carl A Verschuur
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 4.677

5.  The Benefits of Bimodal Aiding on Extended Dimensions of Speech Perception: Intelligibility, Listening Effort, and Sound Quality.

Authors:  Elke M J Devocht; A Miranda L Janssen; Josef Chalupper; Robert J Stokroos; Erwin L J George
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.