Literature DB >> 9391635

Speech perception in noise with implant and hearing aid.

M Armstrong1, P Pegg, C James, P Blamey.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perception of speech in quiet and in noise by adults using a cochlear implant on its own or a cochlear implant and hearing aid together. STUDY
DESIGN: Repeated measures.
SETTING: Laboratory study using subjects' own speech processors. PATIENTS: Two groups of cochlear implant users (Australian and American) with some residual hearing in the non-implanted ear (pure tone average thresholds at 500 Hz, 1 kHz, and 2 kHz of 75-112 dB HL). INTERVENTION(S): Conventional hearing aid and cochlear implant in opposite ears. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Speech perception was evaluated using recorded lists of CUNY sentences and lists of CNC words in quiet and in background noise.
RESULTS: Speech scores were significantly higher with implant and hearing aid together compared to implant alone. The binaural advantage was greater in background noise than it was in quiet for CUNY sentences in the American listeners.
CONCLUSION: Severely-to-profoundly hearing impaired adults may benefit from combined fitting of implants and conventional hearing aids in opposite ears.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9391635

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Otol        ISSN: 0192-9763


  39 in total

1.  Current and planned cochlear implant research at New York University Laboratory for Translational Auditory Research.

Authors:  Mario A Svirsky; Matthew B Fitzgerald; Arlene Neuman; Elad Sagi; Chin-Tuan Tan; Darlene Ketten; Brett Martin
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  The relative phonetic contributions of a cochlear implant and residual acoustic hearing to bimodal speech perception.

Authors:  Benjamin M Sheffield; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 3.  Adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO): a digital amplification strategy for hearing aids and cochlear implants.

Authors:  Peter J Blamey
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2005

4.  Combined electric and contralateral acoustic hearing: word and sentence recognition with bimodal hearing.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman; Sharon A McKarns; Anthony J Spahr
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Rene H Gifford
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 2.117

Review 6.  [Hearing with combined electric acoustic stimulation].

Authors:  U Baumann; S Helbig
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.284

7.  Quality of life in bimodal hearing users (unilateral cochlear implants and contralateral hearing aids).

Authors:  A Farinetti; S Roman; J Mancini; K Baumstarck-Barrau; R Meller; J P Lavieille; J M Triglia
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 2.503

8.  Information from the voice fundamental frequency (F0) region accounts for the majority of the benefit when acoustic stimulation is added to electric stimulation.

Authors:  Ting Zhang; Michael F Dorman; Anthony J Spahr
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Self-reported spatial hearing abilities across different cochlear implant profiles.

Authors:  Ann E Perreau; Hua Ou; Richard Tyler; Camille Dunn
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 1.493

10.  Relationship between auditory function of nonimplanted ears and bimodal benefit.

Authors:  Ting Zhang; Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman; Aniket Saoji
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.