Literature DB >> 26535803

Effects of Removing Low-Frequency Electric Information on Speech Perception With Bimodal Hearing.

Jennifer R Fowler, Jessica L Eggleston, Kelly M Reavis, Garnett P McMillan, Lina A J Reiss.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The objective was to determine whether speech perception could be improved for bimodal listeners (those using a cochlear implant [CI] in one ear and hearing aid in the contralateral ear) by removing low-frequency information provided by the CI, thereby reducing acoustic-electric overlap.
METHOD: Subjects were adult CI subjects with at least 1 year of CI experience. Nine subjects were evaluated in the CI-only condition (control condition), and 26 subjects were evaluated in the bimodal condition. CIs were programmed with 4 experimental programs in which the low cutoff frequency (LCF) was progressively raised. Speech perception was evaluated using Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant words in quiet, AzBio sentences in background babble, and spondee words in background babble.
RESULTS: The CI-only group showed decreased speech perception in both quiet and noise as the LCF was raised. Bimodal subjects with better hearing in the hearing aid ear (< 60 dB HL at 250 and 500 Hz) performed best for words in quiet as the LCF was raised. In contrast, bimodal subjects with worse hearing (> 60 dB HL at 250 and 500 Hz) performed similarly to the CI-only group.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that reducing low-frequency overlap of the CI and contralateral hearing aid may improve performance in quiet for some bimodal listeners with better hearing.

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26535803      PMCID: PMC4862739          DOI: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-15-0247

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  45 in total

Review 1.  New frontiers in cochlear implantation: acoustic plus electric hearing, hearing preservation, and more.

Authors:  Sarah E Mowry; Erika Woodson; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  Otolaryngol Clin North Am       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.346

2.  Acoustic simulations of combined electric and acoustic hearing (EAS).

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Anthony J Spahr; Philipos C Loizou; Cindy J Dana; Jennifer S Schmidt
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Effects of minimum stimulation settings for the Med El Tempo+ speech processor on speech understanding.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetric hearing loss.

Authors:  Jill B Firszt; Laura K Holden; Ruth M Reeder; Lisa Cowdrey; Sarah King
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 5.  A systematic review of electric-acoustic stimulation: device fitting ranges, outcomes, and clinical fitting practices.

Authors:  Paola V Incerti; Teresa Y C Ching; Robert Cowan
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2013-03

Review 6.  NAL-NL2 empirical adjustments.

Authors:  Gitte Keidser; Harvey Dillon; Lyndal Carter; Anna O'Brien
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2012-11-30

7.  Frequency selectivity of contralateral residual acoustic hearing in bimodal cochlear implant users, and limitations on the ability to match the pitch of electric and acoustic stimuli.

Authors:  Tim Green; Andrew Faulkner; Stuart Rosen
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2011-12-27       Impact factor: 2.117

8.  Overlapping frequency coverage and simulated spatial cue effects on bimodal (electrical and acoustical) sentence recognition in noise.

Authors:  Tim Green; Andrew Faulkner; Stuart Rosen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  New criteria of indication and selection of patients to cochlear implant.

Authors:  André L L Sampaio; Mercêdes F S Araújo; Carlos A C P Oliveira
Journal:  Int J Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-10-13

10.  Listening to speech in a background of other talkers: effects of talker number and noise vocoding.

Authors:  Stuart Rosen; Pamela Souza; Caroline Ekelund; Arooj A Majeed
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  6 in total

1.  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

2.  Two Ears Are Not Always Better than One: Mandatory Vowel Fusion Across Spectrally Mismatched Ears in Hearing-Impaired Listeners.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Jessica L Eggleston; Emily P Walker; Yonghee Oh
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-05-24

3.  Restoration of spatial hearing in adult cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness.

Authors:  Ruth Y Litovsky; Keng Moua; Shelly Godar; Alan Kan; Sara M Misurelli; Daniel J Lee
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-04-14       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  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

5.  Interaction Between Electric and Acoustic Stimulation Influences Speech Perception in Ipsilateral EAS Users.

Authors:  Marina Imsiecke; Benjamin Krüger; Andreas Büchner; Thomas Lenarz; Waldo Nogueira
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Integration of acoustic and electric hearing is better in the same ear than across ears.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; John J Galvin; Xiaosong Wang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.