Literature DB >> 24319590

HEARING, PSYCHOPHYSICS, AND COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION: EXPERIENCES OF OLDER INDIVIDUALS WITH MILD SLOPING TO PROFOUND SENSORY HEARING LOSS.

René H Gifford1, Michael F Dorman, Chris Brown, Anthony J Spahr.   

Abstract

In a previous paper we reported the frequency selectivity, temporal resolution, nonlinear cochlear processing, and speech recognition in quiet and in noise for 5 listeners with normal hearing (mean age 24.2 years) and 17 older listeners (mean age 68.5 years) with bilateral, mild sloping to profound sensory hearing loss (Gifford et al., 2007). Since that report, 2 additional participants with hearing loss completed experimentation for a total of 19 listeners. Of the 19 with hearing loss, 16 ultimately received a cochlear implant. The purpose of the current study was to provide information on the pre-operative psychophysical characteristics of low-frequency hearing and speech recognition abilities, and on the resultant postoperative speech recognition and associated benefit from cochlear implantation. The current preoperative data for the 16 listeners receiving cochlear implants demonstrate: 1) reduced or absent nonlinear cochlear processing at 500 Hz, 2) impaired frequency selectivity at 500 Hz, 3) normal temporal resolution at low modulation rates for a 500-Hz carrier, 4) poor speech recognition in a modulated background, and 5) highly variable speech recognition (from 0 to over 60% correct) for monosyllables in the bilaterally aided condition. As reported previously, measures of auditory function were not significantly correlated with pre- or post-operative speech recognition - with the exception of nonlinear cochlear processing and preoperative sentence recognition in quiet (p=0.008) and at +10 dB SNR (p=0.007). These correlations, however, were driven by the data obtained from two listeners who had the highest degree of nonlinearity and preoperative sentence recognition. All estimates of postoperative speech recognition performance were significantly higher than preoperative estimates for both the ear that was implanted (p<0.001) as well as for the best-aided condition (p<0.001). It can be concluded that older individuals with mild sloping to profound sensory hearing loss have very little to no residual nonlinear cochlear function, resulting in impaired frequency selectivity as well as poor speech recognition in modulated noise. These same individuals exhibit highly significant improvement in speech recognition in both quiet and noise following cochlear implantation. For older individuals with mild to profound sensorineural hearing loss who have difficulty in speech recognition with appropriately fitted hearing aids, there is little to lose in terms of psychoacoustic processing in the low-frequency region and much to gain with respect to speech recognition and overall communication benefit. These data further support the need to consider factors beyond the audiogram in determining cochlear implant candidacy, as older individuals with relatively good low-frequency hearing may exhibit vastly different speech perception abilities - illustrating the point that signal audibility is not a reliable predictor of performance on supra-threshold tasks such as speech recognition.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aging; bimodal; cochlear implant; frequency resolution; low-frequency hearing; older; psychoacoustic function; speech recognition; temporal resolution

Year:  2012        PMID: 24319590      PMCID: PMC3849823     

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


  27 in total

1.  Psychophysical estimates of cochlear phase response: masking by harmonic complexes.

Authors:  J J Lentz; M R Leek
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2001-12

2.  Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data.

Authors:  B R Glasberg; B C Moore
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1990-08-01       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Effects of envelope-vocoder processing on F0 discrimination and concurrent-vowel identification.

Authors:  Michael K Qin; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Auditory filter shapes derived with noise stimuli.

Authors:  R D Patterson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1976-03       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Simulation of the effects of loudness recruitment and threshold elevation on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in a background of speech.

Authors:  B C Moore; B R Glasberg
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Temporal modulation transfer functions based upon modulation thresholds.

Authors:  N F Viemeister
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1979-11       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Modulation detection in subjects with relatively flat hearing losses.

Authors:  S P Bacon; R M Gleitman
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1992-06

8.  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

9.  Age-related differences in the temporal modulation transfer function with pure-tone carriers.

Authors:  Ning-ji He; John H Mills; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Temporal modulation transfer functions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  S P Bacon; N F Viemeister
Journal:  Audiology       Date:  1985
View more
  1 in total

1.  Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation With Hearing Preservation: Effect of Cochlear Implant Low-Frequency Cutoff on Speech Understanding and Perceived Listening Difficulty.

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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.