Literature DB >> 24992987

Bimodal cochlear implants: the role of acoustic signal level in determining speech perception benefit.

Michael F Dorman1, Philip Loizou, Shuai Wang, Ting Zhang, Anthony Spahr, Louise Loiselle, Sarah Cook.   

Abstract

The aim of this project was to determine for bimodal cochlear implant (CI) patients, i.e. patients with low-frequency hearing in the ear contralateral to the implant, how speech understanding varies as a function of the difference in level between the CI signal and the acoustic signal. The data suggest that (1) acoustic signals perceived as significantly softer than a CI signal can contribute to speech understanding in the bimodal condition, (2) acoustic signals that are slightly softer than, or balanced with, a CI signal provide the largest benefit to speech understanding, and (3) acoustic signals presented at maximum comfortable loudness levels provide nearly as much benefit as signals that have been balanced with a CI signal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24992987      PMCID: PMC4201875          DOI: 10.1159/000360070

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


  19 in total

1.  A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea.

Authors:  B C Moore; M Huss; D A Vickers; B R Glasberg; J I Alcántara
Journal:  Br J Audiol       Date:  2000-08

2.  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

3.  Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Rene H Gifford
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 2.117

4.  Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears.

Authors:  Teresa Y C Ching; Paula Incerti; Mandy Hill
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Speech perception in noise with implant and hearing aid.

Authors:  M Armstrong; P Pegg; C James; P Blamey
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1997-11

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Implementation of a fast method for measuring psychophysical tuning curves.

Authors:  Aleksander Sęk; Brian C J Moore
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2011-02-07       Impact factor: 2.117

9.  Design and evaluation of a personal digital assistant-based research platform for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Hussnain Ali; Arthur P Lobo; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 4.538

10.  Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired.

Authors:  D Byrne; A Parkinson; P Newall
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  8 in total

1.  The Effect of Residual Acoustic Hearing and Adaptation to Uncertainty on Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users: Evidence From Eye-Tracking.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Ashley Farris-Trimble; Michael Seedorff; Hannah Rigler
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  How Do You Deal With Uncertainty? Cochlear Implant Users Differ in the Dynamics of Lexical Processing of Noncanonical Inputs.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Tyler P Ellis; Keith S Apfelbaum
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Low-frequency fine-structure cues allow for the online use of lexical stress during spoken-word recognition in spectrally degraded speech.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Alexandra Jesse
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Top-Down Processes in Simulated Electric-Acoustic Hearing: The Effect of Linguistic Context on Bimodal Benefit for Temporally Interrupted Speech.

Authors:  Soo Hee Oh; Gail S Donaldson; Ying-Yee Kong
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

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

6.  Discriminability and Perceptual Saliency of Temporal and Spectral Cues for Final Fricative Consonant Voicing in Simulated Cochlear-Implant and Bimodal Hearing.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Matthew B Winn; Katja Poellmann; Gail S Donaldson
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 3.293

7.  Self-Reported Usage, Functional Benefit, and Audiologic Characteristics of Cochlear Implant Patients Who Use a Contralateral Hearing Aid.

Authors:  Arlene C Neuman; Susan B Waltzman; William H Shapiro; Jonathan D Neukam; Annette M Zeman; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.293

8.  Real-time loudness normalisation with combined cochlear implant and hearing aid stimulation.

Authors:  Dimitar Spirrov; Maaike Van Eeckhoutte; Lieselot Van Deun; Tom Francart
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-04       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.