Michael F Dorman1, Rene H Gifford2. 1. Department of Speech and Hearing Science, Arizona State University, Tempe. 2. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this article is to summarize recent published and unpublished research from our 2 laboratories on improving speech understanding in complex listening environments by listeners fit with cochlear implants (CIs). Method: CI listeners were tested in 2 listening environments. One was a simulation of a restaurant with multiple, diffuse noise sources, and the other was a cocktail party with 2 spatially separated point sources of competing speech. At issue was the value of the following sources of information, or interventions, on speech understanding: (a) visual information, (b) adaptive beamformer microphones and remote microphones, (c) bimodal fittings, that is, a CI and contralateral low-frequency acoustic hearing, (d) hearing preservation fittings, that is, a CI with preserved low-frequency acoustic in the same ear plus low-frequency acoustic hearing in the contralateral ear, and (e) bilateral CIs. Results: A remote microphone provided the largest improvement in speech understanding. Visual information and adaptive beamformers ranked next, while bimodal fittings, bilateral fittings, and hearing preservation provided significant but less benefit than the other interventions or sources of information. Only bilateral CIs allowed listeners high levels of speech understanding when signals were roved over the frontal plane. Conclusions: The evidence supports the use of bilateral CIs and hearing preservation surgery for best speech understanding in complex environments. These fittings, when combined with visual information and microphone technology, should lead to high levels of speech understanding by CI patients in complex listening environments. Presentation Video: http://cred.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=2601622.
Purpose: The aim of this article is to summarize recent published and unpublished research from our 2 laboratories on improving speech understanding in complex listening environments by listeners fit with cochlear implants (CIs). Method: CI listeners were tested in 2 listening environments. One was a simulation of a restaurant with multiple, diffuse noise sources, and the other was a cocktail party with 2 spatially separated point sources of competing speech. At issue was the value of the following sources of information, or interventions, on speech understanding: (a) visual information, (b) adaptive beamformer microphones and remote microphones, (c) bimodal fittings, that is, a CI and contralateral low-frequency acoustic hearing, (d) hearing preservation fittings, that is, a CI with preserved low-frequency acoustic in the same ear plus low-frequency acoustic hearing in the contralateral ear, and (e) bilateral CIs. Results: A remote microphone provided the largest improvement in speech understanding. Visual information and adaptive beamformers ranked next, while bimodal fittings, bilateral fittings, and hearing preservation provided significant but less benefit than the other interventions or sources of information. Only bilateral CIs allowed listeners high levels of speech understanding when signals were roved over the frontal plane. Conclusions: The evidence supports the use of bilateral CIs and hearing preservation surgery for best speech understanding in complex environments. These fittings, when combined with visual information and microphone technology, should lead to high levels of speech understanding by CI patients in complex listening environments. Presentation Video: http://cred.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=2601622.
Authors: Ann Spriet; Lieselot Van Deun; Kyriaky Eftaxiadis; Johan Laneau; Marc Moonen; Bas van Dijk; Astrid van Wieringen; Jan Wouters Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Thomas Lenarz; Chris James; Domenico Cuda; Alec Fitzgerald O'Connor; Bruno Frachet; Johan H M Frijns; Thomas Klenzner; Roland Laszig; Manuel Manrique; Mathieu Marx; Paul Merkus; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Erwin Offeciers; Joerg Pesch; Angel Ramos-Macias; Alain Robier; Olivier Sterkers; Alain Uziel Journal: Int J Audiol Date: 2013-09-02 Impact factor: 2.117
Authors: Louise H Loiselle; Michael F Dorman; William A Yost; Sarah J Cook; Rene H Gifford Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Andreas Buechner; Karl-Heinz Dyballa; Phillipp Hehrmann; Stefan Fredelake; Thomas Lenarz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ilaria Giallini; Maria Nicastri; Bianca M S Inguscio; Ginevra Portanova; Giuseppe Magliulo; Antonio Greco; Patrizia Mancini Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-05-20
Authors: Elizabeth L Perkins; Nauman F Manzoor; David S Haynes; Matthew O'Malley; René Gifford; Alejandro Rivas Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: L J G Lambriks; M van Hoof; J A Debruyne; M Janssen; J Chalupper; K A van der Heijden; J R Hof; C A Hellingman; E L J George; E M J Devocht Journal: Trials Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 2.279
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