Literature DB >> 24556850

The benefits of bimodal hearing: effect of frequency region and acoustic bandwidth.

Sterling W Sheffield1, René H Gifford.   

Abstract

We examined the effects of acoustic bandwidth on bimodal benefit for speech recognition in adults with a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and low-frequency acoustic hearing in the contralateral ear. The primary aims were to (1) replicate Zhang et al. [Ear Hear 2010;31:63-69] with a steeper filter roll-off to examine the low-pass bandwidth required to obtain bimodal benefit for speech recognition and expand results to include different signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and talker genders, (2) determine whether the bimodal benefit increased with acoustic low-pass bandwidth and (3) determine whether an equivalent bimodal benefit was obtained with acoustic signals of similar low-pass and pass band bandwidth, but different center frequencies. Speech recognition was assessed using words presented in quiet and sentences in noise (+10, +5 and 0 dB SNRs). Acoustic stimuli presented to the nonimplanted ear were filtered into the following bands: <125, 125-250, <250, 250-500, <500, 250-750, <750 Hz and wide-band (full, nonfiltered bandwidth). The primary findings were: (1) the minimum acoustic low-pass bandwidth that produced a significant bimodal benefit was <250 Hz for male talkers in quiet and for female talkers in multitalker babble, but <125 Hz for male talkers in background noise, and the observed bimodal benefit did not vary significantly with SNR; (2) the bimodal benefit increased systematically with acoustic low-pass bandwidth up to <750 Hz for a male talker in quiet and female talkers in noise and up to <500 Hz for male talkers in noise, and (3) a similar bimodal benefit was obtained with low-pass and band-pass-filtered stimuli with different center frequencies (e.g. <250 vs. 250-500 Hz), meaning multiple frequency regions contain useful cues for bimodal benefit. Clinical implications are that (1) all aidable frequencies should be amplified in individuals with bimodal hearing, and (2) verification of audibility at 125 Hz is unnecessary unless it is the only aidable frequency.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24556850      PMCID: PMC4104148          DOI: 10.1159/000357588

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


  31 in total

1.  Learning effects associated with repeated word-recognition measures using sentence materials.

Authors:  Richard H Wilson; Theodore S Bell; John A Koslowski
Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug

2.  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

3.  Acoustic simulations of combined electric and acoustic hearing (EAS).

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Anthony J Spahr; Philipos C Loizou; Cindy J Dana; Jennifer S Schmidt
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.570

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.  Combined electric and contralateral acoustic hearing: word and sentence recognition with bimodal hearing.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman; Sharon A McKarns; Anthony J Spahr
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  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

7.  Beneficial acoustic speech cues for cochlear implant users with residual acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Anisa S Visram; Mahan Azadpour; Karolina Kluk; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  A "rationalized" arcsine transform.

Authors:  G A Studebaker
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1985-09

9.  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

10.  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

View more
  29 in total

1.  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

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.  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

4.  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

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.  Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners' Ability to Perceive Minimal Audible Angle Differences.

Authors:  Ashley Zaleski-King; Matthew J Goupell; Dragana Barac-Cikoja; Matthew Bakke
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Bilateral Cochlear Implantation Versus Bimodal Hearing in Patients With Functional Residual Hearing: A Within-subjects Comparison of Audiologic Performance and Quality of Life.

Authors:  Robert J Yawn; Brendan P O'Connell; Robert T Dwyer; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Susan Reynolds; David S Haynes; René H Gifford
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Preserved acoustic hearing in cochlear implantation improves speech perception.

Authors:  Sterling W Sheffield; Kelly Jahn; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  Effect of Scala Tympani Height on Insertion Depth of Straight Cochlear Implant Electrodes.

Authors:  William G Morrel; Jourdan T Holder; Benoit M Dawant; Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2020-02-25       Impact factor: 3.497

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.