Literature DB >> 25514454

Evaluation of wideband frequency responses and nonlinear frequency compression for children with cookie-bite audiometric configurations.

Andrew John1, Jace Wolfe2, Susan Scollie3, Erin Schafer4, Mary Hudson1, Whitney Woods1, Julie Wheeler1, Krystal Hudgens2, Sara Neumann2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous research has suggested that use of nonlinear frequency compression (NLFC) can improve audibility for high-frequency sounds and speech recognition of children with moderate to profound high-frequency hearing loss. Furthermore, previous studies have generally found no detriment associated with the use of NLFC. However, there have been no published studies examining the effect of NLFC on the performance of children with cookie-bite audiometric configurations. For this configuration of hearing loss, frequency-lowering processing will likely move high-frequency sounds to a lower frequency range at which a greater degree of hearing loss exists.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of wideband amplification and NLFC on high-frequency audibility and speech recognition of children with cookie-bite audiometric configurations. RESEARCH
DESIGN: This study consisted of a within-participant design with repeated measures across test conditions. STUDY SAMPLE: Seven children, ages 6-13 yr, with cookie-bite audiometric configurations and normal hearing or mild hearing loss at 6000 and 8000 Hz, were recruited. INTERVENTION: Participants were fitted with Phonak Nios S H2O III behind-the-ear hearing aids and Oticon Safari 300 behind-the-ear hearing aids. DATA COLLECTION: The participants were evaluated after three 4-to 6-wk intervals: (1) Phonak Nios S H2O III without NLFC, (2) Phonak Nios S H2O III with NLFC, and (3) Oticon Safari 300 with wideband frequency response extending to 8000 Hz. The order in which each technology was used was counterbalanced across participants. High-frequency audibility was evaluated by assessing aided thresholds (dB SPL) for warble tones and the high-frequency phonemes /sh/ and /s/. Speech recognition in quiet was measured with the University of Western Ontario (UWO) Plurals Test, the UWO Distinctive Features Difference (DFD) Test, and the Phoneme Perception Test vowel-consonant-vowel nonsense syllable test. Sentence recognition in noise was evaluated with the Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-In-Noise (BKB-SIN) Test. ANALYSIS: Repeated-measures analyses of variance were used to analyze the data collected in this study. The results across the three different conditions were compared.
RESULTS: No difference in performance across conditions was observed for detection of high-frequency warble tones and the speech sounds /sh/ and /s/. No significant difference was seen across conditions for speech recognition in quiet when measured with the UWO Plurals Test, the UWO-DFD Test, and the Phoneme Perception Test vowel-consonant-vowel nonsense syllable test. Finally, there were also no differences across conditions on the BKB-SIN Test.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that NLFC does not degrade or improve audibility for and recognition of high-frequency speech sounds as well as sentence recognition in noise when compared with wideband amplification for children with cookie-bite audiometric configurations. American Academy of Audiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25514454     DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.25.10.10

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  6 in total

1.  Listening Effort and Speech Recognition with Frequency Compression Amplification for Children and Adults with Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Marc A Brennan; Dawna Lewis; Ryan McCreery; Judy Kopun; Joshua M Alexander
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Quality ratings of frequency-compressed speech by participants with extensive high-frequency dead regions in the cochlea.

Authors:  Marina Salorio-Corbetto; Thomas Baer; Brian C J Moore
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  Word Recognition and Learning: Effects of Hearing Loss and Amplification Feature.

Authors:  Andrea L Pittman; Elizabeth C Stewart; Amanda P Willman; Ian S Odgear
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

4.  Evaluation of a Frequency-Lowering Algorithm for Adults With High-Frequency Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Marina Salorio-Corbetto; Thomas Baer; Brian C J Moore
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

Review 5.  Auditory perceptual efficacy of nonlinear frequency compression used in hearing aids: A review.

Authors:  Yitao Mao; Jing Yang; Emily Hahn; Li Xu
Journal:  J Otol       Date:  2017-07-04

6.  Comparison of Frequency Transposition and Frequency Compression for People With Extensive Dead Regions in the Cochlea.

Authors:  Marina Salorio-Corbetto; Thomas Baer; Brian C J Moore
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.