Literature DB >> 24356514

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

René H Gifford1, Michael F Dorman, Sterling W Sheffield, Kate Teece, Amy P Olund.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the availability of binaural cues for adult, bilateral cochlear implant (CI) patients, bimodal patients and hearing preservation patients using a multiple-baseline, observational study design. Speech recognition was assessed using the Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise (BKB-SIN) test as well as the AzBio sentences [Spahr AJ, et al: Ear Hear 2012;33:112-117] presented in a multi-talker babble at a +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Test conditions included speech at 0° with noise presented at 0° (S0N0), 90° (S0N90) and 270° (S0N270). Estimates of summation, head shadow (HS), squelch and spatial release from masking (SRM) were calculated. Though nonwwe of the subject groups consistently showed access to binaural cues, the hearing preservation patients exhibited a significant correlation between summation and squelch whereas the bilateral and bimodal participants did not. That is to say, the two effects associated with binaural hearing - summation and squelch - were positively correlated only for the listeners with bilateral acoustic hearing. This finding provides evidence for the supposition that implant recipients with bilateral acoustic hearing have access to binaural cues, which should, in theory, provide greater benefit in noisy listening environments. It is likely, however, that the chosen test environment negatively affected the outcomes. Specifically, the spatially separated noise conditions directed noise toward the microphone (mic) port of the behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid and implant processor. Thus, it is possible that in more realistic listening environments for which the diffuse noise is not directed toward the processor/hearing aid mic, hearing preservation patients have binaural cues for improved speech understanding.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24356514      PMCID: PMC3932362          DOI: 10.1159/000355700

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Audiol Neurootol        ISSN: 1420-3030            Impact factor:   1.854


  31 in total

1.  Current research with cochlear implants at Arizona State University.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Anthony Spahr; Rene H Gifford; Sarah Cook; Ting Zhang; Louise Loiselle; William Yost; Lara Cardy; JoAnne Whittingham; David Schramm
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Speech understanding in quiet and noise in bilateral users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ cochlear implant system.

Authors:  Joachim Müller; F Schön; J Helms
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Multicenter U.S. bilateral MED-EL cochlear implantation study: speech perception over the first year of use.

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

4.  More challenging speech-perception tasks demonstrate binaural benefit in bilateral cochlear implant users.

Authors:  P Ashley Wackym; Christina L Runge-Samuelson; Jill B Firszt; Farah Mohd Alkaf; Linda S Burg
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Speech performance and sound localization abilities in Neurelec Digisonic® SP binaural cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Nicolas Verhaert; Diane S Lazard; Dan Gnansia; Jean-Pierre Bébéar; Philippe Romanet; Bernard Meyer; Vincent Péan; Dominique Mollard; Eric Truy
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  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

7.  Hearing-in-noise benefits after bilateral simultaneous cochlear implantation continue to improve 4 years after implantation.

Authors:  Rose J Eapen; Emily Buss; Marcia Clark Adunka; Harold C Pillsbury; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman; Henryk Skarzynski; Artur Lorens; Marek Polak; Colin L W Driscoll; Peter Roland; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  The effects of changes in head angle on auditory and visual input for omnidirectional and directional microphone hearing aids.

Authors:  Paula Henry; Todd Ricketts
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 1.493

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

Authors:  Rene H Gifford; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  J Hear Sci       Date:  2012-05-01
View more
  40 in total

Review 1.  Guidelines for Best Practice in the Audiological Management of Adults with Severe and Profound Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Laura Turton; Pamela Souza; Linda Thibodeau; Louise Hickson; René Gifford; Judith Bird; Maren Stropahl; Lorraine Gailey; Bernadette Fulton; Nerina Scarinci; Katie Ekberg; Barbra Timmer
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2020-12-16

2.  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

3.  Impact of Intrascalar Electrode Location, Electrode Type, and Angular Insertion Depth on Residual Hearing in Cochlear Implant Patients: Preliminary Results.

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

4.  Speech Understanding in Noise for Adults With Cochlear Implants: Effects of Hearing Configuration, Source Location Certainty, and Head Movement.

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

5.  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

6.  Using ILD or ITD Cues for Sound Source Localization and Speech Understanding in a Complex Listening Environment by Listeners With Bilateral and With Hearing-Preservation Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Louise H Loiselle; Michael F Dorman; William A Yost; Sarah J Cook; Rene H Gifford
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Clinical evaluation of an image-guided cochlear implant programming strategy.

Authors:  Jack H Noble; René H Gifford; Andrea J Hedley-Williams; Benoit M Dawant; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2014-11-07       Impact factor: 1.854

8.  Cochlear implant phantom for evaluating computed tomography acquisition parameters.

Authors:  Srijata Chakravorti; Brian J Bussey; Yiyuan Zhao; Benoit M Dawant; Robert F Labadie; Jack H Noble
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-11-16

9.  Spatial Release From Masking in Adults With Bilateral Cochlear Implants: Effects of Distracter Azimuth and Microphone Location.

Authors:  Timothy J Davis; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Bimodal Hearing or Bilateral Cochlear Implants? Ask the Patient.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.