Non-sensory biases in a pitch-discrimination task for bilateral and single-sided deafness cochlear-implant listeners

2017 ◽  
Vol 141 (5) ◽  
pp. 3815-3815
Author(s):  
Olga Stakhovskaya ◽  
Joshua G. Bernstein ◽  
Matthew Goupell
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Discrimination Task ◽  
Pitch Discrimination ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

scholarly journals Interaural Pitch-Discrimination Range Effects for Bilateral and Single-Sided-Deafness Cochlear-Implant Users

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Goupell ◽  
Stefano Cosentino ◽  
Olga A. Stakhovskaya ◽  
Joshua G. W. Bernstein
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Pitch Discrimination ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

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.

scholarly journals Evaluation of an Adaptive Dynamic Compensation System in Cochlear Implant Listeners

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 233121652097034
Author(s):  
Florian Langner ◽  
Andreas Büchner ◽  
Waldo Nogueira
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Discrimination Task ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Compensation System ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Dynamic Compensation ◽  
Front End ◽  
Noise Ratio

Cochlear implant (CI) sound processing typically uses a front-end automatic gain control (AGC), reducing the acoustic dynamic range (DR) to control the output level and protect the signal processing against large amplitude changes. It can also introduce distortions into the signal and does not allow a direct mapping between acoustic input and electric output. For speech in noise, a reduction in DR can result in lower speech intelligibility due to compressed modulations of speech. This study proposes to implement a CI signal processing scheme consisting of a full acoustic DR with adaptive properties to improve the signal-to-noise ratio and overall speech intelligibility. Measurements based on the Short-Time Objective Intelligibility measure and an electrodogram analysis, as well as behavioral tests in up to 10 CI users, were used to compare performance with a single-channel, dual-loop, front-end AGC and with an adaptive back-end multiband dynamic compensation system (Voice Guard [VG]). Speech intelligibility in quiet and at a +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio was assessed with the Hochmair–Schulz–Moser sentence test. A logatome discrimination task with different consonants was performed in quiet. Speech intelligibility was significantly higher in quiet for VG than for AGC, but intelligibility was similar in noise. Participants obtained significantly better scores with VG than AGC in the logatome discrimination task. The objective measurements predicted significantly better performance estimates for VG. Overall, a dynamic compensation system can outperform a single-stage compression (AGC + linear compression) for speech perception in quiet.

Electro-acoustic pitch matching experiments in patients with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant

2016 ◽  
Vol 342 ◽  
pp. 124-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen P.M. Peters ◽  
Edwin Bennink ◽  
Wilko Grolman ◽  
Gijsbert A. van Zanten
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Pitch Matching ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

scholarly journals Reducing interaural tonotopic mismatch preserves binaural unmasking in cochlear implant simulations of single-sided deafness

2021 ◽  
Vol 150 (4) ◽  
pp. 2316-2326
Author(s):  
Elad Sagi ◽  
Mahan Azadpour ◽  
Jonathan Neukam ◽  
Nicole Hope Capach ◽  
Mario A. Svirsky
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

Evaluating the Long-Term Hearing Outcomes of Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. e575-e580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dayse Távora-Vieira ◽  
Gunesh P. Rajan ◽  
Paul Van de Heyning ◽  
Griet Mertens
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Hearing Outcomes
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document