Literature DB >> 28301392

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

René H Gifford1, Timothy J Davis, Linsey W Sunderhaus, Christine Menapace, Barbara Buck, Jillian Crosson, Lori O'Neill, Anne Beiter, Phil Segel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of electric and acoustic overlap for speech understanding in typical listening conditions using semidiffuse noise.
DESIGN: This study used a within-subjects, repeated measures design including 11 experienced adult implant recipients (13 ears) with functional residual hearing in the implanted and nonimplanted ear. The aided acoustic bandwidth was fixed and the low-frequency cutoff for the cochlear implant (CI) was varied systematically. Assessments were completed in the R-SPACE sound-simulation system which includes a semidiffuse restaurant noise originating from eight loudspeakers placed circumferentially about the subject's head. AzBio sentences were presented at 67 dBA with signal to noise ratio varying between +10 and 0 dB determined individually to yield approximately 50 to 60% correct for the CI-alone condition with full CI bandwidth. Listening conditions for all subjects included CI alone, bimodal (CI + contralateral hearing aid), and bilateral-aided electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS; CI + bilateral hearing aid). Low-frequency cutoffs both below and above the original "clinical software recommendation" frequency were tested for all patients, in all conditions. Subjects estimated listening difficulty for all conditions using listener ratings based on a visual analog scale.
RESULTS: Three primary findings were that (1) there was statistically significant benefit of preserved acoustic hearing in the implanted ear for most overlap conditions, (2) the default clinical software recommendation rarely yielded the highest level of speech recognition (1 of 13 ears), and (3) greater EAS overlap than that provided by the clinical recommendation yielded significant improvements in speech understanding.
CONCLUSIONS: For standard-electrode CI recipients with preserved hearing, spectral overlap of acoustic and electric stimuli yielded significantly better speech understanding and less listening effort in a laboratory-based, restaurant-noise simulation. In conclusion, EAS patients may derive more benefit from greater acoustic and electric overlap than given in current software fitting recommendations, which are based solely on audiometric threshold. These data have larger scientific implications, as previous studies may not have assessed outcomes with optimized EAS parameters, thereby underestimating the benefit afforded by hearing preservation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28301392      PMCID: PMC5570648          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000418

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  88 in total

1.  Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss.

Authors:  C W Turner; K J Cummings
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 1.493

2.  Effects of low-pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies.

Authors:  D A Vickers; B C Moore; T Baer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  New version of the TEN test with calibrations in dB HL.

Authors:  Brian C J Moore; Brian R Glasberg; Michael A Stone
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Benefits of Adaptive Signal Processing in a Commercially Available Cochlear Implant Sound Processor.

Authors:  Jace Wolfe; Sara Neumann; Megan Marsh; Erin Schafer; Leslie Lianos; Jan Gilden; Lori O'Neill; Pete Arkis; Christine Menapace; Esti Nel; Marian Jones
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Impact of Intrascalar Electrode Location, Electrode Type, and Angular Insertion Depth on Residual Hearing in Cochlear Implant Patients: Preliminary Results.

Authors:  George B Wanna; Jack H Noble; Rene H Gifford; Mary S Dietrich; Alex D Sweeney; Dongqing Zhang; Benoit M Dawant; Alejandro Rivas; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Restaurant noise, hearing loss, and hearing aids.

Authors:  C P Lebo; M F Smith; E R Mosher; S J Jelonek; D R Schwind; K E Decker; H J Krusemark; P L Kurz
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1994-07

7.  HEARING, PSYCHOPHYSICS, AND COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION: EXPERIENCES OF OLDER INDIVIDUALS WITH MILD SLOPING TO PROFOUND SENSORY HEARING LOSS.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman; Chris Brown; Anthony J Spahr
Journal:  J Hear Sci       Date:  2012-12

8.  High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  C A Hogan; C W Turner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Clinical evaluation of the Nucleus 6 cochlear implant system: performance improvements with SmartSound iQ.

Authors:  Stefan J Mauger; Chris D Warren; Michelle R Knight; Michael Goorevich; Esti Nel
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.117

10.  United States multicenter clinical trial of the cochlear nucleus hybrid implant system.

Authors:  J Thomas Roland; Bruce J Gantz; Susan B Waltzman; Aaron J Parkinson
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 3.325

View more
  27 in total

1.  Binaural interference with simulated electric acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Chantal van Ginkel; René H Gifford; G Christopher Stecker
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Matched Cohort Comparison Indicates Superiority of Precurved Electrode Arrays.

Authors:  Jourdan T Holder; Robert J Yawn; Ashley M Nassiri; Robert T Dwyer; Alejandro Rivas; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Speech masking release in Hybrid cochlear implant users: Roles of spectral and temporal cues in electric-acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Viral D Tejani; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 4.  Speech Understanding in Complex Listening Environments by Listeners Fit With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Rene H Gifford
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  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

6.  Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation.

Authors:  René H Gifford; G Christopher Stecker
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Long-term outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with high-frequency hearing loss.

Authors:  J Thomas Roland; Bruce J Gantz; Susan B Waltzman; Aaron J Parkinson
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2018-01-13       Impact factor: 3.325

Review 8.  Electric and Acoustic Stimulation in Cochlear Implant Recipients with Hearing Preservation.

Authors:  Christopher Welch; Margaret T Dillon; Harold C Pillsbury
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2018-10-26

9.  Enhancement of Consonant Recognition in Bimodal and Normal Hearing Listeners.

Authors:  Yang-Soo Yoon; Britteny Riley; Henna Patel; Amanda Frost; Paul Fillmore; Rene Gifford; John Hansen
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 1.547

10.  The Reality of Hearing Preservation in Cochlear Implantation: Who Is Utilizing EAS?

Authors:  Elizabeth Perkins; Jaclyn Lee; Nauman Manzoor; Matthew O'Malley; Marc Bennett; Robert Labadie; Alejandro Rivas; David Haynes; René Gifford
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.311

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.