Literature DB >> 28906240

Listening Effort Measured in Adults with Normal Hearing and Cochlear Implants.

Ann E Perreau1, Yu-Hsiang Wu2, Bailey Tatge2, Diana Irwin1, Daniel Corts1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Studies have examined listening effort in individuals with hearing loss to determine the extent of the impairment. Regarding cochlear implants (CIs), results suggest that listening effort is improved using bilateral CIs compared to unilateral CIs. Few studies have investigated listening effort and outcomes related to the hybrid CI.
PURPOSE: Here, we compared listening effort across three CI groups, and to a normal-hearing control group. The impact of listener traits, that is, age, age at onset of hearing loss, duration of CI use, and working memory capacity, were examined relative to listening effort. RESEARCH
DESIGN: The participants completed a dual-task paradigm with a primary task identifying sentences in noise and a secondary task measuring reaction time on a Stroop test. Performance was assessed for all participant groups at different signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), ranging in 2-dB steps from 0 to +10 dB relative to an individual's SNR-50, at which the speech recognition performance is 50% correct. Participants completed three questions on listening effort, the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire, and a reading span test. STUDY SAMPLE: All 46 participants were adults. The four participant groups included (1) 12 individuals with normal hearing, (2) 10 with unilateral CIs, (3) 12 with bilateral CIs, and (4) 12 with a hybrid short-electrode CI and bilateral residual hearing. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Results from the dual-task experiment were compared using a mixed 4 (hearing group) by 6 (SNR condition) analysis of variance (ANOVA). Questionnaire results were compared using one-way ANOVAs, and correlations between listener traits and the objective and subjective measures were compared using Pearson correlation coefficients.
RESULTS: Significant differences were found in speech perception among the normal-hearing and the unilateral and the bilateral CI groups. There was no difference in primary task performance among the hybrid CI and the normal-hearing groups. Across the six SNR conditions, listening effort improved to a greater degree for the normal-hearing group compared to the CI groups. However, there was no significant difference in listening effort between the CI groups. The subjective measures revealed significant differences between the normal-hearing and CI groups, but no difference among the three CI groups. Across all groups, age was significantly correlated with listening effort. We found no relationship between listening effort and the age at the onset of hearing loss, age at implantation, the duration of CI use, and working memory capacity for these participants.
CONCLUSIONS: Listening effort was reduced to a greater degree for the normal-hearing group compared to the CI users. There was no significant difference in listening effort among the CI groups. For the CI users in this study, age was a significant factor with regard to listening effort, whereas other variables such as the duration of CI use and the age at the onset of hearing loss were not significantly related to listening effort. American Academy of Audiology

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28906240      PMCID: PMC6135240          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16014

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


  32 in total

1.  Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Christopher W Turner; Bruce J Gantz; Corina Vidal; Amy Behrens; Belinda A Henry
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.

Authors:  Franz Faul; Edgar Erdfelder; Albert-Georg Lang; Axel Buchner
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2007-05

3.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests.

Authors:  G E PETERSON; I LEHISTE
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1962-02

4.  Listening effort with cochlear implant simulations.

Authors:  Carina Pals; Anastasios Sarampalis; Deniz Baskent
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Hearing Impairment and Cognitive Energy: The Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening (FUEL).

Authors:  M Kathleen Pichora-Fuller; Sophia E Kramer; Mark A Eckert; Brent Edwards; Benjamin W Y Hornsby; Larry E Humes; Ulrike Lemke; Thomas Lunner; Mohan Matthen; Carol L Mackersie; Graham Naylor; Natalie A Phillips; Michael Richter; Mary Rudner; Mitchell S Sommers; Kelly L Tremblay; Arthur Wingfield
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Effects of hearing and use on speech discrimination and listening effort.

Authors:  D W Downs
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1982-05

7.  How hearing aids, background noise, and visual cues influence objective listening effort.

Authors:  Erin M Picou; Todd A Ricketts; Benjamin W Y Hornsby
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Monaural versus binaural hearing: ease of listening, word recognition, and attentional effort.

Authors:  J F Feuerstein
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Neural correlates of listening effort related factors: influence of age and hearing impairment.

Authors:  Corinna Bernarding; Daniel J Strauss; Ronny Hannemann; Harald Seidler; Farah I Corona-Strauss
Journal:  Brain Res Bull       Date:  2012-11-29       Impact factor: 4.077

10.  The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ).

Authors:  Stuart Gatehouse; William Noble
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.117

View more
  8 in total

1.  Evaluation of a New Algorithm to Optimize Audibility in Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Noël Y Dwyer; Amy L Stein; Leo M Litvak
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Counting or discriminating the number of voices to assess binaural fusion with single-sided vocoders.

Authors:  Jessica M Wess; Nathaniel J Spencer; Joshua G W Bernstein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Predictive Sentence Context Reduces Listening Effort in Older Adults With and Without Hearing Loss and With High and Low Working Memory Capacity.

Authors:  Cynthia R Hunter; Larry E Humes
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 3.562

4.  Microsecond interaural time difference discrimination restored by cochlear implants after neonatal deafness.

Authors:  Nicole Rosskothen-Kuhl; Alexa N Buck; Kongyan Li; Jan Wh Schnupp
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 8.140

5.  Speech Recognition and Listening Effort in Cochlear Implant Recipients and Normal-Hearing Listeners.

Authors:  Khaled H A Abdel-Latif; Hartmut Meister
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-02-10       Impact factor: 4.677

6.  Perceived Listening Difficulties of Adult Cochlear-Implant Users Under Measures Introduced to Combat the Spread of COVID-19.

Authors:  Francisca Perea Pérez; Douglas E H Hartley; Pádraig T Kitterick; Ian M Wiggins
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.496

7.  Pupillometry as a Measure of Listening Effort in Patients with Bone-Anchored Hearing Systems.

Authors:  Wojciech Gawęcki; Katarzyna Krzystanek; Magdalena Węgrzyniak; Renata Gibasiewicz; Małgorzata Wierzbicka
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 4.964

8.  Effect of Spectral Channels on Speech Recognition, Comprehension, and Listening Effort in Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Carina Pals; Anastasios Sarampalis; Andy Beynon; Thomas Stainsby; Deniz Başkent
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.