Jace Wolfe1, Mila Morais2, Erin Schafer2. 1. Hearts for Hearing Foundation, Oklahoma City, OK. 2. University of North Texas, Speech and Hearing Department, Denton, TX.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cochlear implant (CI) recipients experience difficulty understanding speech in noise. Remote-microphone technology that improves the signal-to-noise ratio is recognized as an effective means to improve speech recognition in noise; however, there are no published studies evaluating the potential benefits of a wireless, remote-microphone, digital, audio-streaming accessory device (heretofore referred to as a remote-microphone accessory) designed to deliver audio signals directly to a CI sound processor. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare speech recognition in quiet and in noise of recipients while using their CI alone and with a remote-microphone accessory. RESEARCH DESIGN: A two-way repeated measures design was used to evaluate performance differences obtained in quiet and in increasing levels of competing noise with the CI sound processor alone and with the sound processor paired to the remote microphone accessory. STUDY SAMPLE: Sixteen users of Cochlear Nucleus 24 Freedom, CI512, and CI422 implants were included in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Participants were evaluated in 14 conditions including use of the sound processor alone and with the remote-microphone accessory in quiet and at the following signal levels: 65 dBA speech (at the location of the participant; 85 dBA at the location of the remote microphone) in quiet and competing noise at 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 dBA noise levels. Speech recognition was evaluated in each of these conditions with one full list of AzBio sentences. RESULTS: Speech recognition in quiet and in all competing noise levels, except the 75 dBA condition, was significantly better with use of the remote-microphone accessory compared with participants' performance with the CI sound processor alone. As expected, in all technology conditions, performance was significantly poorer as the competing noise level increased. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a remote-microphone accessory designed for a CI sound processor provides superior speech recognition in quiet and in noise when compared with performance obtained with the CI sound processor alone. American Academy of Audiology.
BACKGROUND: Cochlear implant (CI) recipients experience difficulty understanding speech in noise. Remote-microphone technology that improves the signal-to-noise ratio is recognized as an effective means to improve speech recognition in noise; however, there are no published studies evaluating the potential benefits of a wireless, remote-microphone, digital, audio-streaming accessory device (heretofore referred to as a remote-microphone accessory) designed to deliver audio signals directly to a CI sound processor. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare speech recognition in quiet and in noise of recipients while using their CI alone and with a remote-microphone accessory. RESEARCH DESIGN: A two-way repeated measures design was used to evaluate performance differences obtained in quiet and in increasing levels of competing noise with the CI sound processor alone and with the sound processor paired to the remote microphone accessory. STUDY SAMPLE: Sixteen users of Cochlear Nucleus 24 Freedom, CI512, and CI422 implants were included in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Participants were evaluated in 14 conditions including use of the sound processor alone and with the remote-microphone accessory in quiet and at the following signal levels: 65 dBA speech (at the location of the participant; 85 dBA at the location of the remote microphone) in quiet and competing noise at 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 dBA noise levels. Speech recognition was evaluated in each of these conditions with one full list of AzBio sentences. RESULTS: Speech recognition in quiet and in all competing noise levels, except the 75 dBA condition, was significantly better with use of the remote-microphone accessory compared with participants' performance with the CI sound processor alone. As expected, in all technology conditions, performance was significantly poorer as the competing noise level increased. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a remote-microphone accessory designed for a CI sound processor provides superior speech recognition in quiet and in noise when compared with performance obtained with the CI sound processor alone. American Academy of Audiology.
Authors: J Thomas Roland; Craig Buchman; Laurie Eisenberg; Lillian Henderson; Shuman He; Jill Firszt; Howard Francis; Camille Dunn; Doug Sladen; Susan Arndt; Bradford May; Daniel Zeitler; John K Niparko; Susan Emmett; Debara Tucci; Joseph Chen; Amy McConkey Robbins; Ernest Schwefler; Ann Geers; Amy Lederberg; Heather Hayes; Michelle Hughes; Julie Bierer; Erin Schafer; Donna Sorkin; Linda Kozma-Spytek; Tina Childress Journal: Cochlear Implants Int Date: 2016-09-16
Authors: Ali K Yetisen; Juan Leonardo Martinez-Hurtado; Barış Ünal; Ali Khademhosseini; Haider Butt Journal: Adv Mater Date: 2018-06-11 Impact factor: 30.849