Speech perception for cochlear implant patients using hearing aids on the unimplanted ear

2004 ◽  
Vol 1273 ◽  
pp. 223-226
Author(s):  
Jane R. Madell ◽  
Nicole Sislian ◽  
Ronald Hoffman
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids

scholarly journals Bone-anchored hearing system, contralateral routing of signals hearing aid or cochlear implant: what is best in single-sided deafness?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Till F. Jakob ◽  
Iva Speck ◽  
Ann-Kathrin Rauch ◽  
Frederike Hassepass ◽  
Manuel C. Ketterer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Sound Localisation ◽  
Therapy Option ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Objective Hearing Tests

Abstract Purpose The aim of the study was to compare long-term results after 1 year in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) who were fitted with different hearing aids. The participants tested contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing aids and bone-anchored hearing systems (BAHS). They were also informed about the possibility of a cochlear implant (CI) and chose one of the three devices. We also investigated which factors influenced the choice of device. Methods Prospective study with 89 SSD participants who were divided into three groups by choosing BAHS, CROS, or CI. All participants received test batteries with both objective hearing tests (speech perception in noise and sound localisation) and subjective questionnaires. Results 16 participants opted for BAHS-, 13 for CROS- and 30 for CI-treatment. The greater the subjective impairment caused by SSD, the more likely patients were to opt for surgical treatment (BAHS or CI). The best results in terms of speech perception in noise (especially when sound reaches the deaf ear and noise the hearing ear), sound localization, and subjective results were achieved with CI. Conclusion The best results regarding the therapy of SSD are achieved with a CI, followed by BAHS. This was evident both in objective tests and in the subjective questionnaires. Nevertheless, an individual decision is required in each case as to which SSD therapy option is best for the patient. Above all, the patient's subjective impairment and expectations should be included in the decision-making process.

A Role for Acoustic Stimulation in Advanced Otosclerosis: Direct Acoustic Cochlear Implant versus Cochlear Implant

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-97
Author(s):  
Nicolas Verhaert ◽  
Charlotte Borgers ◽  
Katleen De Voecht ◽  
Ellen Boon ◽  
Christian Desloovere
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Grading System ◽  
Effective Treatment Option ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Direct Acoustic Cochlear Implant ◽  
Acoustic Component

Recent findings support the efficacy of the direct acoustic cochlear implant (DACI) in patients with advanced otosclerosis whose rehabilitation is very challenging. Standard treatment consists of stapes surgery combined with hearing aids or a cochlear implant (CI). CI surgery, however, is often challenging depending on the grade of otosclerosis. This study aims to compare speech perception scores in quiet and noise of 6 DACI and 12 CI patients with advanced otosclerosis at 3 and 12 months after fitting. Preoperative computed tomographic scans of all patients were scored by experts using an existing otosclerosis grading system (stages 1–3). Speech perception in quiet was significantly better for DACI compared to CI users at 3 months after fitting. At 12 months, no difference was found between DACI and CI patients. Speech perception scores in noise were significantly better in the DACI group. In summary, a DACI system seems to provide an effective treatment option as the acoustic component can be preserved in patients with advanced otosclerosis.

scholarly journals Temporal Stability of Music Perception and Appraisal Scores of Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (01) ◽  
pp. 028-034 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Gfeller ◽  
Dingfeng Jiang ◽  
Jacob J. Oleson ◽  
Virginia Driscoll ◽  
John F. Knutson
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cognitive Processing ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Music Perception ◽  
Musical Training ◽  
Demographic Variables ◽  
Music Listening ◽  
Modest Improvement ◽  
One Year

Background: An extensive body of literature indicates that cochlear implants (CIs) are effective in supporting speech perception of persons with severe to profound hearing losses who do not benefit to any great extent from conventional hearing aids. Adult CI recipients tend to show significant improvement in speech perception within 3 mo following implantation as a result of mere experience. Furthermore, CI recipients continue to show modest improvement as long as 5 yr postimplantation. In contrast, data taken from single testing protocols of music perception and appraisal indicate that CIs are less than ideal in transmitting important structural features of music, such as pitch, melody, and timbre. However, there is presently little information documenting changes in music perception or appraisal over extended time as a result of mere experience. Purpose: This study examined two basic questions: (1) Do adult CI recipients show significant improvement in perceptual acuity or appraisal of specific music listening tasks when tested in two consecutive years? (2) If there are tasks for which CI recipients show significant improvement with time, are there particular demographic variables that predict those CI recipients most likely to show improvement with extended CI use? Research Design: A longitudinal cohort study. Implant recipients return annually for visits to the clinic. Study Sample: The study included 209 adult cochlear implant recipients with at least 9 mo implant experience before their first year measurement. Data Collection and Analysis: Outcomes were measured on the patient's annual visit in two consecutive years. Paired t-tests were used to test for significant improvement from one year to the next. Those variables demonstrating significant improvement were subjected to regression analyses performed to detect the demographic variables useful in predicting said improvement. Results: There were no significant differences in music perception outcomes as a function of type of device or processing strategy used. Only familiar melody recognition (FMR) and recognition of melody excerpts with lyrics (MERT-L) showed significant improvement from one year to the next. After controlling for the baseline value, hearing aid use, months of use, music listening habits after implantation, and formal musical training in elementary school were significant predictors of FMR improvement. Bilateral CI use, formal musical training in high school and beyond, and a measure of sequential cognitive processing were significant predictors of MERT-L improvement. Conclusion: These adult CI recipients as a result of mere experience demonstrated fairly consistent music perception and appraisal on measures gathered in two consecutive years. Gains made tend to be modest, and can be associated with characteristics such as use of hearing aids, listening experiences, or bilateral use (in the case of lyrics). These results have implications for counseling of CI recipients with regard to realistic expectations and strategies for enhancing music perception and enjoyment.

scholarly journals Current and Planned Cochlear Implant Research at New York University Laboratory for Translational Auditory Research

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (06) ◽  
pp. 422-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario A. Svirsky ◽  
Matthew B. Fitzgerald ◽  
Arlene Neuman ◽  
Elad Sagi ◽  
Chin-Tuan Tan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
New York University ◽  
School Of Medicine ◽  
Basic Studies ◽  
University Laboratory ◽  
Auditory Research

The Laboratory of Translational Auditory Research (LTAR/NYUSM) is part of the Department of Otolaryngology at the New York University School of Medicine and has close ties to the New York University Cochlear Implant Center. LTAR investigators have expertise in multiple related disciplines including speech and hearing science, audiology, engineering, and physiology. The lines of research in the laboratory deal mostly with speech perception by hearing impaired listeners, and particularly those who use cochlear implants (CIs) or hearing aids (HAs). Although the laboratory’s research interests are diverse, there are common threads that permeate and tie all of its work. In particular, a strong interest in translational research underlies even the most basic studies carried out in the laboratory. Another important element is the development of engineering and computational tools, which range from mathematical models of speech perception to software and hardware that bypass clinical speech processors and stimulate cochlear implants directly, to novel ways of analyzing clinical outcomes data. If the appropriate tool to conduct an important experiment does not exist, we may work to develop it, either in house or in collaboration with academic or industrial partners. Another notable characteristic of the laboratory is its interdisciplinary nature where, for example, an audiologist and an engineer might work closely to develop an approach that would not have been feasible if each had worked singly on the project. Similarly, investigators with expertise in hearing aids and cochlear implants might join forces to study how human listeners integrate information provided by a CI and a HA. The following pages provide a flavor of the diversity and the commonalities of our research interests.

scholarly journals Benefits of Localization and Speech Perception with Multiple Noise Sources in Listeners with a Short-Electrode Cochlear Implant

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (01) ◽  
pp. 044-051 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille C. Dunn ◽  
Ann Perreau ◽  
Bruce Gantz ◽  
Richard S. Tyler
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Noise Sources ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Array Performance

Background: Research suggests that for individuals with significant low-frequency hearing, implantation of a short-electrode cochlear implant may provide benefits of improved speech perception abilities. Because this strategy combines acoustic and electrical hearing within the same ear while at the same time preserving low-frequency residual acoustic hearing in both ears, localization abilities may also be improved. However, very little research has focused on the localization and spatial hearing abilities of users with a short-electrode cochlear implant. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate localization abilities for listeners with a short-electrode cochlear implant who continue to wear hearing aids in both ears. A secondary purpose was to document speech perception abilities using a speech-in-noise test with spatially separate noise sources. Research Design: Eleven subjects that utilized a short-electrode cochlear implant and bilateral hearing aids were tested on localization and speech perception with multiple noise locations using an eight-loudspeaker array. Performance was assessed across four listening conditions using various combinations of cochlear implant and/or hearing aid use. Results: Results for localization showed no significant difference between using bilateral hearing aids and bilateral hearing aids plus the cochlear implant. However, there was a significant difference between the bilateral hearing aid condition and the implant plus use of a contralateral hearing aid for all 11 subjects. Results for speech perception showed a significant benefit when using bilateral hearing aids plus the cochlear implant over use of the implant plus only one hearing aid. Conclusion: Combined use of both hearing aids and the cochlear implant show significant benefits for both localization and speech perception in noise for users with a short-electrode cochlear implant. These results emphasize the importance of low-frequency information in two ears for the purpose of localization and speech perception in noise.

Speech Perception Performance of Children with a Cochlear Implant Compared to that of Children with Conventional Hearing Aids: 1. The “Equivalent Hearing Loss” Concept

1997 ◽  
Vol 117 (5) ◽  
pp. 750-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ad F. M. Snik ◽  
Anneke M. Vermeulen ◽  
Jan P. L. Brokx ◽  
Cilia Beijk ◽  
Paul Van Den Broek
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids

Performance of Cochlear Implant Patients as a Function of Time

1990 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 511-519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn G. Spivak ◽  
Susan B. Waltzman
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Prognostic Indicator ◽  
Processing Scheme ◽  
Open Set ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Over Time

The speech perception abilities of 15 patients were measured preoperatively using hearing aids and postoperatively using the Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant over a period of 1, 2, or 3 years. Analysis of mean data revealed that, although the greatest amount of improvement in speech perception scores occurred between the preoperative and 3-month poststimulation evaluation, there was also significant improvement in perception of segmental features and open-set speech recognition over the 3-year time period. When individual patient data were examined, however, it was clear that these improvements were due, in large part, to the performance of a subset of patients who had measurable open-set speech recognition abilities at the time of their 3-month, poststimulation evaluation. Subjects who used the processing scheme that included coding of F1 showed significantly more improvement over time than subjects who used the original FOF2 processing scheme exclusively. It was concluded that open-set speech recognition ability at 3 months is an important prognostic indicator of continued improvement in speech perception abilities over time.

Speech Perception Performance of Children with a Cochlear Implant Compared to that of Children with Conventional Hearing Aids: II. Results of Prelingually Deaf Children

1997 ◽  
Vol 117 (5) ◽  
pp. 755-759 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ad F. M. Snik ◽  
Anneke M. Vermeulen ◽  
Charlotte P. Geelen ◽  
Jan P. L. Brokx ◽  
Paul Van Den Broek
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Prelingually Deaf

Comparing Speech Perception of Children With Cochlear Implants or Hearing Aids

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa S. Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Current Device ◽  
Device Technology

Cochlear implant (CI) candidacy guidelines continue to evolve as a result of advances in both cochlear implant and hearing aid technology. Empirical studies comparing the speech perception abilities of children using cochlear implants or hearing aids will be reviewed in the context of current device technology and CI candidacy evaluations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document