scholarly journals Neural Modulation Transmission Is a Marker for Speech Perception in Noise in Cochlear Implant Users

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 591-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Gransier ◽  
Robert Luke ◽  
Astrid van Wieringen ◽  
Jan Wouters
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Neural Modulation

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 Bilateral and Unilateral Cochlear Implant Users Compared on Speech Perception in Noise

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 296-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille C. Dunn ◽  
William Noble ◽  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Monika Kordus ◽  
Bruce J. Gantz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise

Event-related potentials for better speech perception in noise by cochlear implant users

2014 ◽  
Vol 316 ◽  
pp. 110-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Soshi ◽  
Satoko Hisanaga ◽  
Narihiro Kodama ◽  
Yori Kanekama ◽  
Yasuhiro Samejima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Related Potentials

Criteria for Selecting an Optimal Device for the Contralateral Ear of Children with a Unilateral Cochlear Implant

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 314-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung-Wook Jeong ◽  
Min-Young Kang ◽  
Lee-Suk Kim
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Hearing Level ◽  
Monosyllabic Word ◽  
Low Frequencies ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Clinical Criteria ◽  
Contralateral Ear

Objective: To identify clinical criteria for selecting the aiding device for the contralateral ear of children with a unilateral cochlear implant (CI). Methods: Sixty-five children, including 36 bilateral CI users and 29 bimodal users, participated in the study. A speech perception test (monosyllabic word test) in noise was administered. The target speech (65 dB sound pressure level) was presented from the front loudspeaker, and noise (10 dB signal-to-noise ratio) was presented from 3 directions: from in front of the child and 90° to the child's right and left sides. The test was performed using the first CI alone and under bilateral CI or bimodal conditions. The bilateral benefits to speech perception in noise were compared between bilateral CI users and bimodal users. Results: Significant benefits in speech perception in noise were evident in bilateral CI users in all 3 noise conditions. In bimodal users, the hearing threshold at low frequencies of ≤1 kHz in the nonimplanted ear affected the bilateral benefit. Bimodal users with a low-frequency hearing threshold ≤90 dB hearing level (HL) showed a significant bilateral benefit in various noise conditions. By contrast, bimodal users with a low-frequency hearing threshold >90 dB HL showed no significant bilateral benefits in all 3 noise conditions. Conclusions: Bilateral CI and bimodal listening provide better speech perception in noise than unilateral CI alone in children. The contralateral CI is better than bimodal listening for children with a low-frequency hearing threshold >90 dB HL. A hearing threshold at low frequencies of ≤1 kHz may be a good criterion for deciding on the type of device for the contralateral ear of children with a unilateral CI.

scholarly journals The Effect of Different Cochlear Implant Microphones on Acoustic Hearing Individualsʼ Binaural Benefits for Speech Perception in Noise

2011 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin M. Aronoff ◽  
Daniel J. Freed ◽  
Laurel M. Fisher ◽  
Ivan Pal ◽  
Sigfrid D. Soli
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Acoustic Hearing

scholarly journals Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users

2013 ◽  
Vol 299 ◽  
pp. 29-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthi G. Srinivasan ◽  
Monica Padilla ◽  
Robert V. Shannon ◽  
David M. Landsberger
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Current Focusing

scholarly journals Fixed and adaptive beamforming improves speech perception in noise in cochlear implant recipients equipped with the MED-EL SONNET audio processor

PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. e0190718 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clemens Honeder ◽  
Rudolfs Liepins ◽  
Christoph Arnoldner ◽  
Hana Šinkovec ◽  
Alexandra Kaider ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Adaptive Beamforming ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document