Literature DB >> 25690775

Preserved acoustic hearing in cochlear implantation improves speech perception.

Sterling W Sheffield1, Kelly Jahn1, René H Gifford1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With improved surgical techniques and electrode design, an increasing number of cochlear implant (CI) recipients have preserved acoustic hearing in the implanted ear, thereby resulting in bilateral acoustic hearing. There are currently no guidelines, however, for clinicians with respect to audiometric criteria and the recommendation of amplification in the implanted ear. The acoustic bandwidth necessary to obtain speech perception benefit from acoustic hearing in the implanted ear is unknown. Additionally, it is important to determine if, and in which listening environments, acoustic hearing in both ears provides more benefit than hearing in just one ear, even with limited residual hearing.
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to (1) determine whether acoustic hearing in an ear with a CI provides as much speech perception benefit as an equivalent bandwidth of acoustic hearing in the nonimplanted ear, and (2) determine whether acoustic hearing in both ears provides more benefit than hearing in just one ear. RESEARCH
DESIGN: A repeated-measures, within-participant design was used to compare performance across listening conditions. STUDY SAMPLE: Seven adults with CIs and bilateral residual acoustic hearing (hearing preservation) were recruited for the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Consonant-nucleus-consonant word recognition was tested in four conditions: CI alone, CI + acoustic hearing in the nonimplanted ear, CI + acoustic hearing in the implanted ear, and CI + bilateral acoustic hearing. A series of low-pass filters were used to examine the effects of acoustic bandwidth through an insert earphone with amplification. Benefit was defined as the difference among conditions. The benefit of bilateral acoustic hearing was tested in both diffuse and single-source background noise. RESULTS were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance.
RESULTS: Similar benefit was obtained for equivalent acoustic frequency bandwidth in either ear. Acoustic hearing in the nonimplanted ear provided more benefit than the implanted ear only in the wideband condition, most likely because of better audiometric thresholds (>500 Hz) in the nonimplanted ear. Bilateral acoustic hearing provided more benefit than unilateral hearing in either ear alone, but only in diffuse background noise.
CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS support use of amplification in the implanted ear if residual hearing is present. The benefit of bilateral acoustic hearing (hearing preservation) should not be tested in quiet or with spatially coincident speech and noise, but rather in spatially separated speech and noise (e.g., diffuse background noise). American Academy of Audiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25690775      PMCID: PMC4446708          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.26.2.5

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


  34 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.  Evaluation of equivalency in two recordings of monosyllabic words.

Authors:  Margaret W Skinner; Laura K Holden; Marios S Fourakis; John W Hawks; Timothy Holden; Jennifer Arcaroli; Martyn Hyde
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  Speech perception benefit for children with a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears and children with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Mansze Mok; Karyn L Galvin; Richard C Dowell; Colette M McKay
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2009-05-21       Impact factor: 1.854

5.  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

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.  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

8.  Hearing conservation surgery using the Hybrid-L electrode. Results from the first clinical trial at the Medical University of Hannover.

Authors:  Thomas Lenarz; Timo Stöver; Andreas Buechner; Anke Lesinski-Schiedat; Jim Patrick; Joerg Pesch
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 1.854

9.  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

10.  Frequency overlap between electric and acoustic stimulation and speech-perception benefit in patients with combined electric and acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Ting Zhang; Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Intraoperative Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential (ECAP) Measurements in Traditional and Hearing Preservation Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Ashley M Nassiri; Robert J Yawn; René H Gifford; David S Haynes; Jillian B Roberts; Max S Gilbane; Jack Murfee; Marc L Bennett
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation With Hearing Preservation: Effect of Cochlear Implant Low-Frequency Cutoff on Speech Understanding and Perceived Listening Difficulty.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Timothy J Davis; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Christine Menapace; Barbara Buck; Jillian Crosson; Lori O'Neill; Anne Beiter; Phil Segel
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Evaluation of a revised indication for determining adult cochlear implant candidacy.

Authors:  Douglas P Sladen; René H Gifford; David Haynes; David Kelsall; Aaron Benson; Kristen Lewis; Teresa Zwolan; Qian-Jie Fu; Bruce Gantz; Jan Gilden; Brian Westerberg; Cindy Gustin; Lori O'Neil; Colin L Driscoll
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 3.325

5.  Predictive factors for short- and long-term hearing preservation in cochlear implantation with conventional-length electrodes.

Authors:  George B Wanna; Brendan P O'Connell; David O Francis; Rene H Gifford; Jacob B Hunter; Jourdan T Holder; Marc L Bennett; Alejandro Rivas; Robert F Labadie; David S Haynes
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 3.325

6.  Audiology Practices in the Preoperative Evaluation and Management of Adult Cochlear Implant Candidates.

Authors:  Sandra Prentiss; Hillary Snapp; Teresa Zwolan
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 6.223

7.  Emotional Responses to Non-Speech Sounds for Hearing-aid and Bimodal Cochlear-Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Marina M Tawdrous; Kristen L D'Onofrio; René Gifford; Erin M Picou
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.496

8.  Practicable assessment of cochlear size and shape from clinical CT images.

Authors:  Andrew H Gee; Yufeng Zhao; Graham M Treece; Manohar L Bance
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Benefits of Binaural Integration in Cochlear Implant Patients with Single-Sided Deafness and Residual Hearing in the Implanted Ear.

Authors:  Artur Lorens; Anita Obrycka; Piotr Henryk Skarzynski; Henryk Skarzynski
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-23
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.