Literature DB >> 32486815

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

Viral D Tejani1, Carolyn J Brown2.   

Abstract

When compared with cochlear implant (CI) users utilizing electric-only (E-Only) stimulation, CI users utilizing electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) in the implanted ear show improved speech recognition in modulated noise relative to steady-state noise (i.e., speech masking release). It has been hypothesized, but not shown, that masking release is attributed to spectral resolution and temporal fine structure (TFS) provided by acoustic hearing. To address this question, speech masking release, spectral ripple density discrimination thresholds, and fundamental frequency difference limens (f0DLs) were evaluated in the acoustic-only (A-Only), E-Only, and EAS listening modes in EAS CI users. The spectral ripple and f0DL tasks are thought to reflect access to spectral and TFS cues, which could impact speech masking release. Performance in all three measures was poorest when EAS CI users were tested using the E-Only listening mode, with significant improvements in A-Only and EAS listening modes. f0DLs, but not spectral ripple density discrimination thresholds, significantly correlated with speech masking release when assessed in the EAS listening mode. Additionally, speech masking release correlated with AzBio sentence recognition in noise. The correlation between speech masking release and f0DLs likely indicates that TFS cues provided by residual hearing were used to obtain speech masking release, which aided sentence recognition in noise.

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32486815      PMCID: PMC7255813          DOI: 10.1121/10.0001304

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  107 in total

1.  The resolution of complex spectral patterns by cochlear implant and normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Belinda A Henry; Christopher W Turner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 2.  Dead regions in the cochlea: conceptual foundations, diagnosis, and clinical applications.

Authors:  Brian C J Moore
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests.

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

4.  The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials.

Authors:  G A MILLER; G A HEISE; W LICHTEN
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1951-05

5.  Speech perception in gated noise: the effects of temporal resolution.

Authors:  Su-Hyun Jin; Peggy B Nelson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Impact of hair cell preservation in cochlear implantation: combined electric and acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Christopher W Turner; Bruce J Gantz; Sue Karsten; Jennifer Fowler; Lina A Reiss
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Integration of acoustic and electrical hearing.

Authors:  Christopher Turner; Bruce J Gantz; Lina Reiss
Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev       Date:  2008

8.  Recognition of spectrally degraded phonemes by younger, middle-aged, and older normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz; Monita Chatterjee; Sandra Gordon-Salant
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Frequency discrimination of complex tones; assessing the role of component resolvability and temporal fine structure.

Authors:  Brian C J Moore; Brian R Glasberg; Helen J Flanagan; Joe Adams
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Sequential stream segregation in normally-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.

Authors:  Viral D Tejani; Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Monita Chatterjee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  5 in total

1.  Relationship Between Intraoperative Electrocochleography and Hearing Preservation.

Authors:  Thomas Lenarz; Andreas Buechner; Bruce Gantz; Marlan Hansen; Viral D Tejani; Robert Labadie; Brendan O'Connell; Craig Alan Buchman; Carla V Valenzuela; Oliver F Adunka; Michael S Harris; William J Riggs; Douglas Fitzpatrick; Kanthaiah Koka
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Access and Polarization Electrode Impedance Changes in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Cochlear Implant Users with Delayed Loss of Acoustic Hearing.

Authors:  Viral D Tejani; Hyejin Yang; Jeong-Seo Kim; Helin Hernandez; Jacob J Oleson; Marlan R Hansen; Bruce J Gantz; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-10-22

Review 3.  Mythbusters! The Truth about Common Misconceptions in Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Erika A Woodson; Ksenia Aaron; Ahn Nguyen-Huynh; Jonathan Vargo; Sarah E Mowry
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2021-12-09

4.  Electrocochleography and cognition are important predictors of speech perception outcomes in noise for cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Amit Walia; Matthew A Shew; Dorina Kallogjeri; Cameron C Wick; Nedim Durakovic; Shannon M Lefler; Amanda J Ortmann; Jacques A Herzog; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Is Characteristic Frequency Limiting Real-Time Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation?

Authors:  Amit Walia; Matthew A Shew; Shannon M Lefler; Dorina Kallogjeri; Cameron C Wick; Timothy A Holden; Nedim Durakovic; Amanda J Ortmann; Jacques A Herzog; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 5.152

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.