scholarly journals Acoustic Hearing Can Interfere With Single-Sided Deafness Cochlear-Implant Speech Perception

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 747-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua G. W. Bernstein ◽  
Olga A. Stakhovskaya ◽  
Kenneth Kragh Jensen ◽  
Matthew J. Goupell
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Acoustic Hearing ◽  
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 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

Impact of Reverberation on Speech Perception and Sound Localization Accuracy in Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Körtje ◽  
Anja Eichenauer ◽  
Timo Stöver ◽  
Uwe Baumann ◽  
Tobias Weissgerber
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Localization Accuracy ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

scholarly journals The impact of cochlear implant microphone settings on the binaural hearing of experienced cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Kurz ◽  
Maren Zanzinger ◽  
Rudolf Hagen ◽  
Kristen Rak
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Noise Sources ◽  
Shadow Effect ◽  
Spatial Release ◽  
Release From Masking ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objective Cochlear implantation has become a well-accepted treatment option for people with single-sided deafness (SSD) and has become a clinical standard in many countries. A cochlear implant (CI) is the only device which restores binaural hearing. The effect of microphone directionality (MD) settings has been investigated in other CI indication groups, but its impact on speech perception in noise has not been established in CI users with SSD. The focus of this investigation was, therefore, to assess binaural hearing effects using different MD settings in CI users with SSD. Methods Twenty-nine experienced CI users with SSD were recruited to determine speech reception thresholds with varying target and noise sources to define binaural effects (head shadow, squelch, summation, and spatial release from masking), sound localization, and sound quality using the SSQ12 and HISQUI19 questionnaires. Outcome measures included the MD settings “natural”, “adaptive”, and “omnidirectional”. Results The 29 participants involved in the study were divided into two groups: 11 SONNET users and 18 OPUS 2/RONDO users. In both groups, a significant head shadow effect of 7.4–9.2 dB was achieved with the CI. The MD setting “adaptive” provided a significant head shadow effect of 9.2 dB, a squelch effect of 0.9 dB, and spatial release from masking of 7.6 dB in the SONNET group. No significant summation effect could be determined in either group with CI. Outcomes with the omnidirectional setting were not significantly different between groups. For both groups, localization improved significantly when the CI was activated and was best when the omnidirectional setting was used. The groups’ sound quality scores did not significantly differ. Conclusions Adaptive directional microphone settings improve speech perception and binaural hearing abilities in CI users with SSD. Binaural effect measures are valuable to quantify the benefit of CI use, especially in this indication group.

scholarly journals The Effect of Residual Acoustic Hearing and Adaptation to Uncertainty on Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. e37-e51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bob McMurray ◽  
Ashley Farris-Trimble ◽  
Michael Seedorff ◽  
Hannah Rigler
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Acoustic Hearing

The Use of Frequency Compression by Cochlear Implant Recipients with Postoperative Acoustic Hearing

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (06) ◽  
pp. 380-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh McDermott ◽  
Katherine Henshall
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Closed Set ◽  
Frequency Compression ◽  
Acoustic Hearing ◽  
Perceptual Performance

Background: The number of cochlear implant (CI) recipients who have usable acoustic hearing in at least one ear is continuing to grow. Many such CI users gain perceptual benefits from the simultaneous use of acoustic and electric hearing. In particular, it has been shown previously that use of an acoustic hearing aid (HA) with a CI can often improve speech understanding in noise. Purpose: To determine whether the application of frequency compression in an HA would provide perceptual benefits to CI recipients with usable acoustic hearing, either when used in combination with the CI or when the HA was used by itself. Research Design: A repeated-measures experimental design was used to evaluate the effects on speech perception of using a CI either alone or simultaneously with an HA that had frequency compression either enabled or disabled. Study Sample: Eight adult CI recipients who were successful users of acoustic hearing aids in their nonimplanted ears participated as subjects. Intervention: The speech perception of each subject was assessed in seven conditions. These required each subject to listen with (1) their own HA alone; (2) the Phonak Naida HA with frequency compression (SoundRecover) enabled; (3) the Naida with SoundRecover disabled; (4) their CI alone; (5) their CI and their own HA; (6) their CI and the Naida with SoundRecover enabled; and (7) their CI and the Naida with SoundRecover disabled. Test sessions were scheduled over a period of about 10 wk. During part of that time, the subjects were asked to use the Phonak Naida HA with their CIs in place of their own HAs. Data Collection and Analysis: The speech perception tests included measures of consonant identification from a closed set of 12 items presented in quiet, and measures of sentence understanding in babble noise. The speech materials were presented at an average level of 60 dB SPL from a loudspeaker. Results: Speech perception was better, on average, in all conditions that included use of the CI in comparison with any condition in which only an HA was used. For example, consonant recognition improved by approximately 50 percentage points, on average, between the HA-alone listening conditions and the CI-alone condition. There were no statistically significant score differences between conditions with SoundRecover enabled and disabled. There was a small but significant improvement in the average signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) required to understand 50% of the words in the sentences presented in noise when an HA was used simultaneously with the CI. Conclusions: Although each of these CI users readily accepted the Phonak Naida HA with SoundRecover frequency compression, no benefits related specifically to the use of SoundRecover were found in the particular tests of speech understanding applied in this study. The relatively high levels of perceptual performance attained by these subjects with use of a CI by itself are consistent with the finding that the addition of an HA provided little further benefit. However, the use of an HA with the CI did provide better performance than the CI alone for understanding sentences in noise.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document