Literature DB >> 9099565

The effect of loudness imbalance between electrodes in cochlear implant users.

P W Dawson1, M Skok, G M Clark.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine the effect of loudness imbalance between electrodes in patients using the 22-electrode cochlear implant (Cochlear Pty Ltd). It was hypothesized that speech perception scores would be greater when the loudness of electrodes was balanced at the comfort (C) levels than when the C levels were unbalanced.
DESIGN: Ten adult patients received a monosyllabic word test (CNC) words) in quiet and a sentence test (CUNY sentences) in noise under two conditions: with C levels balanced for equal loudness and with unbalanced C levels.
RESULTS: When the C levels across electrodes were pseudo-randomly unbalanced by 0 to +/- 20% of the electrodes' dynamic ranges (20% unbalancing), 6 of the 10 subjects showed a significant drop in sentence perception scores. Of these patients, none had a significant decrease in perception when the degree of unbalancing was halved. Of the four patients who showed no change with 20% unbalancing, three revealed a significant decline in sentence perception when the degree of unbalancing was doubled. There also were significant group effects for phonemes on the word test as well as for sentences in noise for the 20% unbalancing.
CONCLUSIONS: The implications for clinical practice are that it is important to balance the C levels and that clinicians should be encouraged to refine methods for setting C levels in very young children, who may be using unbalanced MAPs. Nevertheless, although most patients revealed a statistically significant drop in sentence perception with 20% imbalance of the C levels, the changes in percentage scores often were only small.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9099565     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199704000-00008

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


  6 in total

1.  Transitioning from bimodal to bilateral cochlear implant listening: speech recognition and localization in four individuals.

Authors:  Lisa G Potts; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.493

2.  Recognition and localization of speech by adult cochlear implant recipients wearing a digital hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear (bimodal hearing).

Authors:  Lisa G Potts; Margaret W Skinner; Ruth A Litovsky; Michael J Strube; Francis Kuk
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  Cochlear Implantation in Cases of Asymmetric Hearing Loss: Subjective Benefit, Word Recognition, and Spatial Hearing.

Authors:  Margaret T Dillon; Emily Buss; Meredith A Rooth; English R King; Sarah A McCarthy; Andrea L Bucker; Ellen J Deres; Margaret E Richter; Nicholas J Thompson; Michael W Canfarotta; Brendan P O'Connell; Harold C Pillsbury; Kevin D Brown
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

4.  Long-term evolution of the electrical stimulation levels for cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  Jose Luis Vargas; Manuel Sainz; Cristina Roldan; Isaac Alvarez; Angel de la Torre
Journal:  Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-11-13       Impact factor: 3.372

Review 5.  Cochlear Implantation for Children and Adults with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Lavin K Entwisle; Sarah E Warren; Jessica J Messersmith
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2018-10-26

6.  ARTFit-A Quick and Reliable Tool for Performing Initial Fittings in Users of MED-EL Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Lutz Gärtner; Timo Bräcker; Mathias Kals; Richard T Penninger; Mareike Billinger-Finke; Thomas Lenarz; Andreas Büchner
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-11
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.