Jace Wolfe1, Sara Neumann1, Erin Schafer2, Megan Marsh1, Mark Wood3, R Stanley Baker3. 1. Hearts for Hearing Foundation, Oklahoma City, OK. 2. Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of North Texas, Denton, TX. 3. Otologic Medical Clinic at the Hough Ear Institute, Oklahoma City, OK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A number of published studies have demonstrated the benefits of electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) over conventional electric stimulation for adults with functional low-frequency acoustic hearing and severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss. These benefits potentially include better speech recognition in quiet and in noise, better localization, improvements in sound quality, better music appreciation and aptitude, and better pitch recognition. There is, however, a paucity of published reports describing the potential benefits and limitations of EAS for children with functional low-frequency acoustic hearing and severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to explore the potential benefits of EAS for children. RESEARCH DESIGN: A repeated measures design was used to evaluate performance differences obtained with EAS stimulation versus acoustic- and electric-only stimulation. STUDY SAMPLE: Seven users of Cochlear Nucleus Hybrid, Nucleus 24 Freedom, CI512, and CI422 implants were included in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Sentence recognition (assayed using the pediatric version of the AzBio sentence recognition test) was evaluated in quiet and at three fixed signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) (0, +5, and +10 dB). Functional hearing performance was also evaluated with the use of questionnaires, including the comparative version of the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities, the Listening Inventory for Education Revised, and the Children's Home Inventory for Listening Difficulties. RESULTS: Speech recognition in noise was typically better with EAS compared to participants' performance with acoustic- and electric-only stimulation, particularly when evaluated at the less favorable SNR. Additionally, in real-world situations, children generally preferred to use EAS compared to electric-only stimulation. Also, the participants' classroom teachers observed better hearing performance in the classroom with the use of EAS. CONCLUSIONS: Use of EAS provided better speech recognition in quiet and in noise when compared to performance obtained with use of acoustic- and electric-only stimulation, and children responded favorably to the use of EAS implemented in an integrated sound processor for real-world use. American Academy of Audiology
BACKGROUND: A number of published studies have demonstrated the benefits of electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) over conventional electric stimulation for adults with functional low-frequency acoustic hearing and severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss. These benefits potentially include better speech recognition in quiet and in noise, better localization, improvements in sound quality, better music appreciation and aptitude, and better pitch recognition. There is, however, a paucity of published reports describing the potential benefits and limitations of EAS for children with functional low-frequency acoustic hearing and severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to explore the potential benefits of EAS for children. RESEARCH DESIGN: A repeated measures design was used to evaluate performance differences obtained with EAS stimulation versus acoustic- and electric-only stimulation. STUDY SAMPLE: Seven users of Cochlear Nucleus Hybrid, Nucleus 24 Freedom, CI512, and CI422 implants were included in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Sentence recognition (assayed using the pediatric version of the AzBio sentence recognition test) was evaluated in quiet and at three fixed signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) (0, +5, and +10 dB). Functional hearing performance was also evaluated with the use of questionnaires, including the comparative version of the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities, the Listening Inventory for Education Revised, and the Children's Home Inventory for Listening Difficulties. RESULTS: Speech recognition in noise was typically better with EAS compared to participants' performance with acoustic- and electric-only stimulation, particularly when evaluated at the less favorable SNR. Additionally, in real-world situations, children generally preferred to use EAS compared to electric-only stimulation. Also, the participants' classroom teachers observed better hearing performance in the classroom with the use of EAS. CONCLUSIONS: Use of EAS provided better speech recognition in quiet and in noise when compared to performance obtained with use of acoustic- and electric-only stimulation, and children responded favorably to the use of EAS implemented in an integrated sound processor for real-world use. American Academy of Audiology
Authors: William G Kronenberger; Hannah Bozell; Shirley C Henning; Caitlin J Montgomery; Allison M Ditmars; David B Pisoni Journal: Int J Audiol Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 2.117