scholarly journals High-Variability Sentence Recognition in Long-Term Cochlear Implant Users

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 1149-1161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gretchen N. L. Smith ◽  
David B. Pisoni ◽  
William G. Kronenberger
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
High Variability ◽  
Sentence Recognition

scholarly journals The Perception of Regional Dialects and Foreign Accents by Cochlear Implant Users

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 683-690
Author(s):  
Terrin N. Tamati ◽  
David B. Pisoni ◽  
Aaron C. Moberly
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
The United States ◽  
Individual Performance ◽  
Rating Task ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Regional Dialects ◽  
Foreign Accents ◽  
Regional Dialect ◽  
Prelingually Deaf

Purpose This preliminary research examined (a) the perception of two common sources of indexical variability in speech—regional dialects and foreign accents, and (b) the relation between indexical processing and sentence recognition among prelingually deaf, long-term cochlear implant (CI) users and normal-hearing (NH) peers. Method Forty-three prelingually deaf adolescent and adult CI users and 44 NH peers completed a regional dialect categorization task, which consisted of identifying the region of origin of an unfamiliar talker from six dialect regions of the United States. They also completed an intelligibility rating task, which consisted of rating the intelligibility of short sentences produced by native and nonnative (foreign-accented) speakers of American English on a scale from 1 ( not intelligible at all ) to 7 ( very intelligible ). Individual performance was compared to demographic factors and sentence recognition scores. Results Both CI and NH groups demonstrated difficulty with regional dialect categorization, but NH listeners significantly outperformed the CI users. In the intelligibility rating task, both CI and NH listeners rated foreign-accented sentences as less intelligible than native sentences; however, CI users perceived smaller differences in intelligibility between native and foreign-accented sentences. Sensitivity to accent differences was related to sentence recognition accuracy in CI users. Conclusions Prelingually deaf, long-term CI users are sensitive to accent variability in speech, but less so than NH peers. Additionally, individual differences in CI users' sensitivity to indexical variability was related to sentence recognition abilities, suggesting a common source of difficulty in the perception and encoding of fine acoustic–phonetic details in speech.

scholarly journals High- and Low-Performing Adult Cochlear Implant Users on High-Variability Sentence Recognition: Differences in Auditory Spectral Resolution and Neurocognitive Functioning

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (05) ◽  
pp. 324-335
Author(s):  
Terrin N. Tamati ◽  
Christin Ray ◽  
Kara J. Vasil ◽  
David B. Pisoni ◽  
Aaron C. Moberly
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Spectral Resolution ◽  
High Variability ◽  
Neurocognitive Functioning ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Nonverbal Reasoning

Abstract Background Postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant (CI) users routinely display large individual differences in the ability to recognize and understand speech, especially in adverse listening conditions. Although individual differences have been linked to several sensory (‘‘bottom-up’') and cognitive (‘‘top-down’') factors, little is currently known about the relative contributions of these factors in high- and low-performing CI users. Purpose The aim of the study was to investigate differences in sensory functioning and neurocognitive functioning between high- and low-performing CI users on the Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set (PRESTO), a high-variability sentence recognition test containing sentence materials produced by multiple male and female talkers with diverse regional accents. Research Design CI users with accuracy scores in the upper (HiPRESTO) or lower quartiles (LoPRESTO) on PRESTO in quiet completed a battery of behavioral tasks designed to assess spectral resolution and neurocognitive functioning. Study Sample Twenty-one postlingually deafened adult CI users, with 11 HiPRESTO and 10 LoPRESTO participants. Data Collection and Analysis A discriminant analysis was carried out to determine the extent to which measures of spectral resolution and neurocognitive functioning discriminate HiPRESTO and LoPRESTO CI users. Auditory spectral resolution was measured using the Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test (SMRT). Neurocognitive functioning was assessed with visual measures of working memory (digit span), inhibitory control (Stroop), speed of lexical/phonological access (Test of Word Reading Efficiency), and nonverbal reasoning (Raven's Progressive Matrices). Results HiPRESTO and LoPRESTO CI users were discriminated primarily by performance on the SMRT and secondarily by the Raven's test. No other neurocognitive measures contributed substantially to the discriminant function. Conclusions High- and low-performing CI users differed by spectral resolution and, to a lesser extent, nonverbal reasoning. These findings suggest that the extreme groups are determined by global factors of richness of sensory information and domain-general, nonverbal intelligence, rather than specific neurocognitive processing operations related to speech perception and spoken word recognition. Thus, although both bottom-up and top-down information contribute to speech recognition performance, low-performing CI users may not be sufficiently able to rely on neurocognitive skills specific to speech recognition to enhance processing of spectrally degraded input in adverse conditions involving high talker variability.

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.

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.

Cochlear implant in vestibular schwannomas: long-term outcomes and critical analysis of indications

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Flavia Sorrentino ◽  
Giulia Tealdo ◽  
Diego Cazzador ◽  
Niccolò Favaretto ◽  
Davide Brotto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Vestibular Schwannomas ◽  
Long Term Outcomes

scholarly journals Costs involved in using a cochlear implant in South Africa

2012 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian Robyn Kerr ◽  
Seppo Tuomi ◽  
Alida Müller
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Consumer Price Index ◽  
Information Costs ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Short And Long Term ◽  
Implant System

Cochlear implantation is an expensive but effective lifelong intervention for individuals with a severe-to-profound hearing loss. The primary aim of this study was to survey the short- and long-term costs of cochlear implantation. Individuals (N=154) using cochlear implants obtained from the University of Stellenbosch-Tygerberg Hospital Cochlear Implant Unit in Cape Town, South Africa were surveyed using a questionnaire and patient record review. The questionnaire used a combination of closed and open-ended questions to gather both quantitative and qualitative information. Costs were categorised as short- and long-term costs. All costs were converted to constant rands (June 2010) using the Consumer Price Index to allow for comparison in real terms over time. In the first 10 years of implantation the average estimated costs incurred by adults totalled R379 626, and by children R455 225. The initial purchase of the implant system was the most substantial cost, followed by upgrading of the processor. Travel and accommodation costs peaked in the first 2 years. On average the participants spent R2 550 per year on batteries and spares. Rehabilitation for children cost an average of R7 200. Insurance costs averaged R4 040 per year, and processor repairs R3 000 each. In addition to the upfront expense of obtaining the cochlear implant system, individuals using a cochlear implant in South Africa should be prepared for the long-term costs of maintenance, accessing the unit, support services and additional costs associated with use. Knowledge of these costs is important to ensure that individuals are successful users of their cochlear implants in the long term.

Cochlear Implant Nonuse: Insight from Deaf Adults

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 270-282
Author(s):  
Maryam Salehomoum
Keyword(s):  
Identity Development ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Accurate Information ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Perceptual Development ◽  
Long Term Outcome ◽  
Deaf Identity ◽  
Deaf Adults ◽  
Insight Into

Abstract Research examining the outcome of pediatric cochlear implantation consists of certain limitations, including the use of assessments that are often restricted to auditory-spoken skills, biased recruitment practices, and lack of consideration for identity development. To better understand the long-term outcome of implantation, it is vital to seek out individuals who decide to stop using their device and elicit feedback related to their decision. Thus, 11 adults, who were past cochlear implant (CI) users, were interviewed to gain insight into factors that had led to their decision regarding cochlear implant nonuse. Results indicated several variables to have played a role, but the most prominent factors were limitations in postimplant auditory perceptual development and development of a d/Deaf identity. Although cochlear implant practices and technology have improved over the past few decades, we need to recognize the continued variability in outcome to ensure the provision of the most accurate information and appropriate services.

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

scholarly journals Computer-Based Connected-Text Training of Speech-in-Noise Perception for Cochlear Implant Users

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 233121651984387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Green ◽  
Andrew Faulkner ◽  
Stuart Rosen
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Digit Span ◽  
Clinical Intervention ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Training Performance ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Connected Text ◽  
Computer Based

An interactive method for training speech perception in noise was assessed with adult cochlear implant users. The method employed recordings of connected narratives divided into phrases of 4 to 10 words, presented in babble. After each phrase, the listener identified key words from the phrase from among similar sounding foil words. Nine postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant users carried out 12 hr of training over a 4-week period. Training was carried out at home on tablet computers. The primary outcome measure was sentence recognition in babble. Vowel and consonant identification in speech-shaped noise were also assessed, along with digit span in noise, intended as a measure of some important underlying cognitive abilities. Talkers for speech tests were different from those used in training. To control for procedural learning, the test battery was administered repeatedly prior to training. Performance was assessed immediately after training and again after a further 4 weeks during which no training occurred. Sentence recognition in babble improved significantly after training, with an improvement in speech reception threshold of approximately 2 dB, which was maintained at the 4-week follow-up. There was little evidence of improvement in the other measures. It appears that the method has potential as a clinical intervention. However, the underlying sources of improvement and the extent to which benefits generalize to real-world situations remain to be determined.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document