Literature DB >> 24950254

Cochlear dead regions constrain the benefit of combining acoustic stimulation with electric stimulation.

Ting Zhang1, Michael F Dorman, Rene Gifford, Brian C J Moore.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to (1) detect the presence and edge frequency (fe) of a cochlear dead region in the ear with residual acoustic hearing for bimodal cochlear implant users, and (2) determine whether amplification based on the presence or absence of a dead region would improve speech understanding and sound quality.
DESIGN: Twenty-two listeners with a cochlear implant in one ear and residual acoustic hearing in the nonimplanted ear were tested. Eleven listeners had a cochlear dead region in the acoustic-hearing ear and 11 did not. Dead regions were assessed with the threshold-equalizing noise (TEN) and the sweeping noise, psychophysical tuning curve tests. Speech understanding was assessed with monosyllabic words and the AzBio sentences at +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Speech- and music-quality judgments were obtained with the Judgment of Sound Quality questionnaire.
RESULTS: Using shifted tips of the psychophysical tuning curve as a basis for diagnosis, the TEN had high sensitivity (0.91) and poor specificity (0.55) for this population. The value of fe was lower when estimated with the sweeping noise, psychophysical tuning curve test than with the TEN test. For the listeners with cochlear dead regions, speech understanding, speech quality and music quality were best when no amplification was applied for frequencies within the dead region. For listeners without dead regions, speech understanding was best with full-bandwidth amplification and was reduced when amplification was not applied when the audiometric threshold exceeded 80 dB HL.
CONCLUSION: The data from this study suggest that, to improve bimodal benefit for listeners who combine electric and acoustic stimulation, audiologists should routinely test for the presence of cochlear dead regions and determine amplification bandwidth accordingly.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24950254      PMCID: PMC4066196          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000032

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


  35 in total

1.  New version of the TEN test with calibrations in dB HL.

Authors:  Brian C J Moore; Brian R Glasberg; Michael A Stone
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Ginger S Stickney; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid.

Authors:  D Byrne; H Dillon
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman; Leonid M Litvak; Susan Van Wie; Rene H Gifford; Philipos C Loizou; Louise M Loiselle; Tyler Oakes; Sarah Cook
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  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

6.  Effects of degree and configuration of hearing loss on the contribution of high- and low-frequency speech information to bilateral speech understanding.

Authors:  Benjamin W Y Hornsby; Earl E Johnson; Erin Picou
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  The effects of hearing loss on the contribution of high- and low-frequency speech information to speech understanding. II. Sloping hearing loss.

Authors:  Benjamin W Y Hornsby; Todd A Ricketts
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Information from the voice fundamental frequency (F0) region accounts for the majority of the benefit when acoustic stimulation is added to electric stimulation.

Authors:  Ting Zhang; Michael F Dorman; Anthony J Spahr
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.570

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.  Development of a fast method for determining psychophysical tuning curves.

Authors:  Aleksander Sek; José Alcántara; Brian C J Moore; Karolina Kluk; Andrzej Wicher
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.117

View more
  21 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.  Sound source localization by hearing preservation patients with and without symmetrical low-frequency acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Louise H Loiselle; Michael F Dorman; William A Yost; René H Gifford
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 1.854

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.  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.  Processing Complex Sounds Passing through the Rostral Brainstem: The New Early Filter Model.

Authors:  John E Marsh; Tom A Campbell
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 4.677

7.  A Within-Subject Comparison of Bimodal Hearing, Bilateral Cochlear Implantation, and Bilateral Cochlear Implantation With Bilateral Hearing Preservation: High-Performing Patients.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Colin L W Driscoll; Timothy J Davis; Pam Fiebig; Alan Micco; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  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

9.  Factors constraining the benefit to speech understanding of combining information from low-frequency hearing and a cochlear implant.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Sarah Cook; Anthony Spahr; Ting Zhang; Louise Loiselle; David Schramm; JoAnne Whittingham; Rene Gifford
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-10-05       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 10.  Bimodal Hearing in Individuals with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss: Benefits, Challenges, and Management.

Authors:  Sarah E Warren; M Noelle Dunbar
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2018-10-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.