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.

scholarly journals Auditory Speech Perception Development in Relation to Patient's Age with Cochlear Implant

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (03) ◽  
pp. 206-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace Ciscare ◽  
Erika Mantello ◽  
Carla Fortunato-Queiroz ◽  
Miguel Hyppolito ◽  
Ana Reis
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Auditory Thresholds ◽  
Caregiver Education ◽  
Auditory Speech ◽  
Hearing Aid Use

Introduction A cochlear implant in adolescent patients with pre-lingual deafness is still a debatable issue. Objective The objective of this study is to analyze and compare the development of auditory speech perception in children with pre-lingual auditory impairment submitted to cochlear implant, in different age groups in the first year after implantation. Method This is a retrospective study, documentary research, in which we analyzed 78 reports of children with severe bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, unilateral cochlear implant users of both sexes. They were divided into three groups: G1, 22 infants aged less than 42 months; G2, 28 infants aged between 43 to 83 months; and G3, 28 older than 84 months. We collected medical record data to characterize the patients, auditory thresholds with cochlear implants, assessment of speech perception, and auditory skills. Results There was no statistical difference in the association of the results among groups G1, G2, and G3 with sex, caregiver education level, city of residence, and speech perception level. There was a moderate correlation between age and hearing aid use time, age and cochlear implants use time. There was a strong correlation between age and the age cochlear implants was performed, hearing aid use time and age CI was performed. Conclusion There was no statistical difference in the speech perception in relation to the patient's age when cochlear implant was performed. There were statistically significant differences for the variables of auditory deprivation time between G3 - G1 and G2 - G1 and hearing aid use time between G3 - G2 and G3 - G1.

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.

Examining the Relationship Between Speech Recognition and a Spectral–Temporal Test With a Mixed Group of Hearing Aid and Cochlear Implant Users

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 1073-1080
Author(s):  
Justin M. Aronoff ◽  
Leah Duitsman ◽  
Deanna K. Matusik ◽  
Senad Hussain ◽  
Elise Lippmann
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Significant Relationship ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Mixed Group ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose Audiology clinics have a need for a nonlinguistic test for assessing speech scores for patients using hearing aids or cochlear implants. One such test, the Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test Lite for computeRless Measurement (SLRM), has been developed for use in clinics, but it, as well as the related Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test, has primarily been assessed with cochlear implant users. The main goal of this study was to examine the relationship between SLRM and the Arizona Biomedical Institute Sentence Test (AzBio) for a mixed group of hearing aid and cochlear implant users. Method Adult hearing aid users and cochlear implant users were tested with SLRM, AzBio in quiet, and AzBio in multitalker babble with a +8 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Results SLRM scores correlated with both AzBio recognition scores in quiet and in noise. Conclusions The results indicated that there is a significant relationship between SLRM and AzBio scores when testing a mixed group of cochlear implant and hearing aid users. This suggests that SLRM may be a useful nonlinguistic test for use with individuals with a variety of hearing devices.

scholarly journals Comparison of Relative Loudness Judgment in Children using Listening Devices with Typically Developing Children

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shubha Tak ◽  
Asha Yathiraj
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Standard Group ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Typically Developing Children ◽  
Loudness Judgment

Abstract Introduction Loudness perception is considered important for the perception of emotions, relative distance and stress patterns. However, certain digital hearing devices worn by those with hearing impairment may affect their loudness perception. This could happen in devices that have compression circuits to make loud sounds soft and soft sounds loud. These devices could hamper children from gaining knowledge about loudness of acoustical signals. Objective To compare relative loudness judgment of children using listening devices with age-matched typically developing children. Methods The relative loudness judgment of sounds created by day-to-day objects were evaluated on 60 children (20 normal-hearing, 20 hearing aid users, & 20 cochlear implant users), utilizing a standard group comparison design. Using a two-alternate forced-choice technique, the children were required to select picturized sound sources that were louder. Results The majority of the participants obtained good scores and poorer scores were mainly obtained by children using cochlear implants. The cochlear implant users obtained significantly lower scores than the normal-hearing participants. However, the scores were not significantly different between the normal-hearing children and the hearing aid users as well as between the two groups with hearing impairment. Conclusion Thus, despite loudness being altered by listening devices, children using non-linear hearing aids or cochlear implants are able to develop relative loudness judgment for acoustic stimuli. However, loudness growth for electrical stimuli needs to be studied.

The Contribution of a Frequency-Compression Hearing Aid to Contralateral Cochlear Implant Performance

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (02) ◽  
pp. 105-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann E. Perreau ◽  
Ruth A. Bentler ◽  
Richard S. Tyler
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Vowel Perception ◽  
Frequency Compression ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact

Background: Frequency-lowering signal processing in hearing aids has re-emerged as an option to improve audibility of the high frequencies by expanding the input bandwidth. Few studies have investigated the usefulness of the scheme as an option for bimodal users (i.e., combined use of a cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid). In this study, that question was posed. Purpose: The purposes of this study were (1) to determine if frequency compression was a better bimodal option than conventional amplification and (2) to determine the impact of a frequency-compression hearing aid on speech recognition abilities. Research Design: There were two separate experiments in this study. The first experiment investigated the contribution of a frequency-compression hearing aid to contralateral cochlear implant (CI) performance for localization and speech perception in noise. The second experiment assessed monaural consonant and vowel perception in quiet using the frequency-compression and conventional hearing aid without the use of a contralateral CI or hearing aid. Study Sample: Ten subjects fitted with a cochlear implant and hearing aid participated in the first experiment. Seventeen adult subjects with a cochlear implant and hearing aid or two hearing aids participated in the second experiment. To be included, subjects had to have a history of postlingual deafness, a moderate or moderate-to-severe hearing loss, and have not worn this type of frequency-lowering hearing aid previously. Data Collection and Analysis: In the first experiment, performance using the frequency-compression and conventional hearing aids was assessed on tests of sound localization, speech perception in a background of noise, and two self-report questionnaires. In the second experiment, consonant and vowel perception in quiet was assessed monaurally for the two conditions. In both experiments, subjects alternated daily between a frequency-compression and conventional hearing aid for 2 mo. The parameters of frequency compression were set individually for each subject, and audibility was measured for the frequency compression and conventional hearing aid programs by comparing estimations of the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) using a modified algorithm (Bentler et al, 2011). In both experiments, the outcome measures were administered following the hearing aid fitting to assess performance at baseline and after 2 mo of use. Results: For this group of subjects, the results revealed no significant difference between the frequency-compression and conventional hearing aid on tests of localization and consonant recognition. Spondee-in-noise and vowel perception scores were significantly higher with the conventional hearing aid compared to the frequency-compression hearing aid after 2 mo of use. Conclusions: These results suggest that, for the subjects in this study, frequency compression is not a better bimodal option than conventional amplification. In addition, speech perception may be negatively influenced by frequency compression because formant frequencies are too severely compressed and can no longer be distinguished.

scholarly journals Integrated Bimodal Fitting for Unilateral CI Users with Residual Contralateral Hearing

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 200-206
Author(s):  
Gennaro Auletta ◽  
Annamaria Franzè ◽  
Carla Laria ◽  
Carmine Piccolo ◽  
Carmine Papa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Performance Difference ◽  
Test Conditions ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Noisy Conditions ◽  
New Formula ◽  
Better Than

Background: The aim of this study was to compare, in users of bimodal cochlear implants, the performance obtained using their own hearing aids (adjusted with the standard NAL-NL1 fitting formula) with the performance using the Phonak Naìda Link Ultra Power hearing aid adjusted with both NAL-NL1 and a new bimodal system (Adaptive Phonak Digital Bimodal (APDB)) developed by Advanced Bionics and Phonak Corporations. Methods: Eleven bimodal users (Naìda CI Q70 + contralateral hearing aid) were enrolled in our study. The users’ own hearing aids were replaced with the Phonak Naìda Link Ultra Power and fitted following the new formula. Speech intelligibility was assessed in quiet and noisy conditions, and comparisons were made with the results obtained with the users’ previous hearing aids and with the Naída Link hearing aids fitted with the NAL-NL1 generic prescription formula. Results: Using Phonak Naìda Link Ultra Power hearing aids with the Adaptive Phonak Digital Bimodal fitting formula, performance was significantly better than that with the users’ own rehabilitation systems, especially in challenging hearing situations for all analyzed subjects. Conclusions: Speech intelligibility tests in quiet settings did not reveal a significant difference in performance between the new fitting formula and NAL-NL1 fittings (using the Naída Link hearing aids), whereas the performance difference between the two fittings was very significant in noisy test conditions.

Reduction in High-Frequency Hearing Aid Gain Can Improve Performance in Patients With Contralateral Cochlear Implant: A Pilot Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 462-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica J. Messersmith ◽  
Lindsey E. Jorgensen ◽  
Jessica A. Hagg
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Chart Review ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Improve Performance ◽  
Bimodal Condition ◽  
Overall Performance ◽  
Age Range ◽  
Clinic Population

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine whether an alternate fitting strategy, specifically adjustment to gains in a hearing aid (HA), would improve performance in patients who experienced poorer performance in the bimodal condition when the HA was fit to traditional targets. Method This study was a retrospective chart review from a local clinic population seen during a 6-month period. Participants included 6 users of bimodal stimulation. Two performed poorer in the cochlear implant (CI) + HA condition than in the CI-only condition. One individual performed higher in the bimodal condition, but the overall performance was low. Three age range–matched users whose performance increased when the HA was used in conjunction with a CI were also included. The HA gain was reduced beyond 2000 Hz. Speech perception scores were obtained pre- and postmodification to the HA fitting. Results All listeners whose HA was programmed using the modified approach demonstrated improved speech perception scores with the modified HA fit in the bimodal condition when compared with the traditional HA fit in the bimodal condition. Conclusion Modifications to gains above 2000 Hz in the HA may improve performance for bimodal listeners who perform more poorly in the bimodal condition when the HA is fit to traditional targets.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document