Dichotic speech recognition by bilateral cochlear implant users

2004 ◽  
Vol 1273 ◽  
pp. 466-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arunvijay Mani ◽  
Philip C. Loizou ◽  
Angela Shoup ◽  
Peter Roland ◽  
Pamela Kruger
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Bilateral Cochlear Implant

Speech Recognition for Unilateral and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Modes in the Presence of Uncorrelated Noise Sources

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 763-773 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd A. Ricketts ◽  
D Wesley Grantham ◽  
Daniel H. Ashmead ◽  
David S. Haynes ◽  
Robert F. Labadie
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Noise Sources ◽  
Uncorrelated Noise ◽  
Bilateral Cochlear Implant

scholarly journals Transitioning From Bimodal to Bilateral Cochlear Implant Listening: Speech Recognition and Localization in Four Individuals

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa G. Potts ◽  
Ruth Y. Litovsky
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Strong Preference ◽  
Bilateral Stimulation ◽  
Test Procedures ◽  
Performance Differences ◽  
Bilateral Cochlear Implant ◽  
Better Than ◽  
Bimodal Hearing

Purpose The use of bilateral stimulation is becoming common for cochlear implant (CI) recipients with either (a) a CI in one ear and a hearing aid (HA) in the nonimplanted ear (CI&HA—bimodal) or (b) CIs in both ears (CI&CI—bilateral). The objective of this study was to evaluate 4 individuals who transitioned from bimodal to bilateral stimulation. Method Participants had completed a larger study of bimodal hearing and subsequently received a second CI. Test procedures from the bimodal study, including roaming speech recognition, localization, and a questionnaire (the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale; Gatehouse & Noble, 2004) were repeated after 6–7 months of bilateral CI experience. Results Speech recognition and localization were not significantly different between bimodal and unilateral CI. In contrast, performance was significantly better with CI&CI compared with unilateral CI. Speech recognition with CI&CI was significantly better than with CI&HA for 2 of 4 participants. Localization was significantly better for all participants with CI&CI compared with CI&HA. CI&CI performance was rated as significantly better on the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale compared with CI&HA. Conclusions There was a strong preference for CI&CI for all participants. The variability in speech recognition and localization, however, suggests that performance under these stimulus conditions is individualized. Differences in hearing and/or HA history may explain performance differences.

scholarly journals Speech recognition by bilateral cochlear implant users in a cocktail-party setting

2009 ◽  
Vol 125 (1) ◽  
pp. 372-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipos C. Loizou ◽  
Yi Hu ◽  
Ruth Litovsky ◽  
Gongqiang Yu ◽  
Robert Peters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cocktail Party ◽  
Bilateral Cochlear Implant

Long-Term Follow-Up of Early Cochlear Implant Device Activation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Stefanie Bruschke ◽  
Uwe Baumann ◽  
Timo Stöver
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Control Group ◽  
First Year ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Sound Processor

Background: The cochlear implant (CI) is a standard procedure for the treatment of patients with severe to profound hearing loss. In the past, a standard healing period of 3–6 weeks occurred after CI surgery before the sound processor was initially activated. Advancements of surgical techniques and instruments allow an earlier initial activation of the processor within 14 days after surgery. Objective: Evaluation of the early CI device activation after CI surgery within 14 days, comparison to the first activation after 4–6 weeks, and assessment of the feasibility and safety of the early fitting over a 12 month observation period were the objectives of this study. Method: In a prospective study, 127 patients scheduled for CI surgery were divided into early fitting group (EF, n = 67) and control group (CG, n = 60). Individual questionnaires were used to evaluate medical and technical outcomes of the EF. Medical side effects, speech recognition, and follow-up effort were compared with the CG within the first year after CI surgery. Results: The early fitting was feasible in 97% of the EF patients. In the EF, the processor was activated 25 days earlier than in the CG. No major complications were observed in either group. At the follow-up appointments, side effects such as pain and balance problems occurred with comparable frequency in both groups. At initial fitting, the EF showed a significantly higher incidence of medical minor complications (p < 0.05). When developing speech recognition within the first year of CI use, no difference was observed. Furthermore, the follow-up effort within the first year after CI surgery was comparable in both groups. Conclusions: Early fitting of the sound processor is a feasible and safe procedure with comparable follow-up effort. Although more early minor complications were observed in the EF, there were no long-term wound healing problems caused by the early fitting. Regular inspection of the magnet strength is recommended as part of the CI follow-up since postoperative wound swelling must be expected. The early fitting procedure enabled a clear reduction in the waiting time between CI surgery and initial sound processor activation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document