scholarly journals Psychophysical Properties of Low-Frequency Hearing: Implications for Perceiving Speech and Music via Electric and Acoustic Stimulation

2009 ◽  
pp. 51-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
René H. Gifford ◽  
Michael F. Dorman ◽  
Christopher A. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Low Frequency ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation

Evaluation of Special Hearing Aids for Deaf Children

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 527-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman P. Erber
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Frequency Range ◽  
Frequency Limit ◽  
Unpublished Studies ◽  
Published Research

Two types of special hearing aid have been developed recently to improve the reception of speech by profoundly deaf children. In a different way, each special system provides greater low-frequency acoustic stimulation to deaf ears than does a conventional hearing aid. One of the devices extends the low-frequency limit of amplification; the other shifts high-frequency energy to a lower frequency range. In general, previous evaluations of these special hearing aids have obtained inconsistent or inconclusive results. This paper reviews most of the published research on the use of special hearing aids by deaf children, summarizes several unpublished studies, and suggests a set of guidelines for future evaluations of special and conventional amplification systems.

scholarly journals Investigation of intracochlear dual actuator stimulation in a scaled test rig

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-122
Author(s):  
Wouter J. van Drunen ◽  
Sarra Kacha Lachheb ◽  
Anatoly Glukhovskoy ◽  
Jens Twiefel ◽  
Marc C. Wurz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Frequency ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Residual Hearing ◽  
Frequency Range ◽  
Test Rig ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Ongoing Research ◽  
Electric Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Single Implant

AbstractFor patients suffering from profound hearing loss or deafness still having respectable residual hearing in the low frequency range, the combination of a hearing aid with a cochlear implant results in the best quality of hearing perception (EAS – electric acoustic stimulation). In order to optimize EAS, ongoing research focusses on the integration of these stimuli in a single implant device. Within this study, the performance of piezoelectric actuators, particularly the dual actuator stimulation, in a scaled uncoiled test rig was investigated.

scholarly journals Preservation of residual hearing after cochlear implant surgery with slim modiolar electrode

2019 ◽  
Vol 277 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matti Iso-Mustajärvi ◽  
Sini Sipari ◽  
Heikki Löppönen ◽  
Aarno Dietz
Keyword(s):  
Low Frequency ◽  
Hearing Preservation ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Residual Hearing ◽  
Insertion Depth ◽  
Cochlear Implant Surgery ◽  
Computed Tomography Scans ◽  
Electric Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the insertion results and hearing preservation of a novel slim modiolar electrode (SME) in patients with residual hearing. Methods We retrospectively collected the data from the medical files of 17 patients (18 ears) implanted with a SME. All patients had functional low frequency hearing (PTA (0.125–0.5 kHz) ≤ 80 dB HL). The insertion results were re-examined from the postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans. Postoperative thresholds were obtained at the time of switch-on of the sound processors (mean 43 days) and at latest follow-up (mean 582 days). The speech recognition in noise was measured with the Finnish matrix sentence test preoperatively and at follow-up. Results The mean insertion depth angle (IDA) was 395°. Neither scala dislocations nor tip fold over were detected. There were no total hearing losses. Functional low-frequency hearing was preserved in 15/18 (83%) ears at switch-on and in 14/17 (82%) ears at follow-up. According to HEARRING classification, 55% (10/18) had complete HP at switch-on and 41% (7/17) still at follow-up. Thirteen patients (14 ears) were initially fitted with electric–acoustic stimulation and seven patients (8 ears) continued to use it after follow-up. Conclusions The preliminary hearing preservation results with the SME were more favorable than reported for other perimodiolar electrodes. The results show that the array may also be feasible for electro-acoustic stimulation; it is beneficial in that it provides adequate cochlear coverage for pure electrical stimulation in the event of postoperative or progressive hearing loss.

Impact of Electric Stimulation on Residual Hearing

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (08) ◽  
pp. 732-740 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret T. Dillon ◽  
Andrea L. Bucker ◽  
Marcia C. Adunka ◽  
English R. King ◽  
Oliver F. Adunka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Electric Stimulation ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Electrode Array ◽  
Hearing Preservation ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
First Year ◽  
Residual Hearing ◽  
Listening Experience

Background: Candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation are expanding to include patients with substantial low-to-mid frequency hearing sensitivity. Postoperative hearing preservation has been achieved in cochlear implant recipients, though with variable outcomes. Previous investigations on postoperative hearing preservation outcomes have evaluated intraoperative procedures. There has been limited review as to whether electric stimulation influences hearing preservation. Purpose: The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate whether charge levels associated with electric stimulation influence postoperative hearing preservation within the first year of listening experience. Research Design: Retrospective analysis of unaided residual hearing and charge levels. Study Sample: Twenty-eight cochlear implant recipients with postoperative residual hearing in the operative ear and at least 12 mo of listening experience with electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS). Data Collection and Analysis: Assessment intervals included initial cochlear implant activation, initial EAS activation, and 3-, 6-, and 12-mo postinitial EAS activation. A masked low-frequency bone-conduction (BC) pure-tone average (PTA) was calculated for all participants at each assessment interval. Charge levels for each electrode were determined using the most comfortable loudness level and pulse width values. Charge levels associated with different regions of the electrode array were compared to the change in the low-frequency BC PTA between two consecutive intervals. Results: Charge levels had little to no association with the postoperative change in low-frequency BC PTA within the first year of listening experience. Conclusions: Electric charge levels do not appear to be reliably related to the subsequent loss of residual low-frequency hearing in the implanted ear within the first year of EAS listening experience.

scholarly journals Hearing Preservation in Cochlear Implant Surgery

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priscila Carvalho Miranda ◽  
André Luiz Lopes Sampaio ◽  
Rafaela Aquino Fernandes Lopes ◽  
Alessandra Ramos Venosa ◽  
Carlos Augusto Costa Pires de Oliveira
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Hearing Preservation ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Electrode Design ◽  
High Frequency Region ◽  
Electric Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
New Treatment

In the past, it was thought that hearing loss patients with residual low-frequency hearing would not be good candidates for cochlear implantation since insertion was expected to induce inner ear trauma. Recent advances in electrode design and surgical techniques have made the preservation of residual low-frequency hearing achievable and desirable. The importance of preserving residual low-frequency hearing cannot be underestimated in light of the added benefit of hearing in noisy atmospheres and in music quality. The concept of electrical and acoustic stimulation involves electrically stimulating the nonfunctional, high-frequency region of the cochlea with a cochlear implant and applying a hearing aid in the low-frequency range. The principle of preserving low-frequency hearing by a “soft surgery” cochlear implantation could also be useful to the population of children who might profit from regenerative hair cell therapy in the future. Main aspects of low-frequency hearing preservation surgery are discussed in this review: its brief history, electrode design, principles and advantages of electric-acoustic stimulation, surgical technique, and further implications of this new treatment possibility for hearing impaired patients.

scholarly journals Current Research with Cochlear Implants at Arizona State University

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (06) ◽  
pp. 385-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael F. Dorman ◽  
Anthony Spahr ◽  
Rene H. Gifford ◽  
Sarah Cook ◽  
Ting Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Hearing Preservation ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
State University ◽  
Arizona State University ◽  
Listening Environments

In this article we review, and discuss the clinical implications of, five projects currently underway in the Cochlear Implant Laboratory at Arizona State University. The projects are (1) norming the AzBio sentence test, (2) comparing the performance of bilateral and bimodal cochlear implant (CI) patients in realistic listening environments, (3) accounting for the benefit provided to bimodal patients by low-frequency acoustic stimulation, (4) assessing localization by bilateral hearing aid patients and the implications of that work for hearing preservation patients, and (5) studying heart rate variability as a possible measure for quantifying the stress of listening via an implant.The long-term goals of the laboratory are to improve the performance of patients fit with cochlear implants and to understand the mechanisms, physiological or electronic, that underlie changes in performance. We began our work with cochlear implant patients in the mid-1980s and received our first grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for work with implanted patients in 1989. Since that date our work with cochlear implant patients has been funded continuously by the NIH. In this report we describe some of the research currently being conducted in our laboratory.

Low-frequency loud acoustic stimulation and goal-directed arm movements

2004 ◽  
Vol 124 (4) ◽  
pp. 395-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Troiani ◽  
Aldo Ferraresi ◽  
Umberto Zei ◽  
Ermanno Manni
Keyword(s):  
Low Frequency ◽  
Arm Movements ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation

scholarly journals Low-Frequency Hearing Preservation With Long Electrode Arrays: Inclusion of Unaided Hearing Threshold Assessment in the Postoperative Test Battery

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret T. Dillon ◽  
Emily Buss ◽  
Brendan P. O'Connell ◽  
Meredith A. Rooth ◽  
English R. King ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Electrode Array ◽  
Hearing Preservation ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Electrode Arrays ◽  
Hearing Sensitivity ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Electric Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Initial Activation

Purpose The goal of this work was to evaluate the low-frequency hearing preservation of long electrode array cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Method Twenty-five participants presented with an unaided hearing threshold of ≤ 80 dB HL at 125 Hz pre-operatively in the ear to be implanted. Participants were implanted with a long (31.5-mm) electrode array. The unaided hearing threshold at 125 Hz was compared between the preoperative and postoperative intervals (i.e., initial CI activation, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after activation). Results Eight participants maintained an unaided hearing threshold of ≤ 80 dB HL at 125 Hz postoperatively. The majority ( n = 5) demonstrated aidable low-frequency hearing at initial activation, whereas 3 other participants experienced an improvement in unaided low-frequency hearing thresholds at subsequent intervals. Conclusions CI recipients can retain residual hearing sensitivity with fully inserted long electrode arrays, and low-frequency hearing thresholds may improve during the postoperative period. Therefore, unaided hearing thresholds obtained within the initial weeks after surgery may not reflect later hearing sensitivity. Routine measurement of postoperative unaided hearing thresholds—even for patients who did not demonstrate aidable hearing thresholds initially after cochlear implantation—will identify CI recipients who may benefit from electric–acoustic stimulation. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.11356637

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document