The effect of auditory feedback alterations on the speech quality of hearing aid and cochlear implant users

2005 ◽  
Vol 117 (4) ◽  
pp. 2606-2606
Author(s):  
Dragana Barac‐Cikoja ◽  
Leslie Klein
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Quality

scholarly journals Identificeerbaarheid van kinderen met een gehoorbeperking

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Boonen ◽  
Hanne Kloots ◽  
Steven Gillis
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Quality ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Device Use ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Children's Speech ◽  
Impaired Children ◽  
Hearing Impaired Children

Abstract Studies on the speech and language development of hearing-impaired children often focus on (deviations in) the children’s speech production. However, it is unclear if listeners also perceive differences between the speech of normally hearing and hearing-impaired children. This contribution wants to fill this void by investigating the overall perceived speech quality of both groups. Three groups of listeners (speech and language pathologists, primary school teachers and inexperienced listeners) judged 126 utterances of seven normally hearing children, seven children with an acoustic hearing aid and seven children with a cochlear implant, in a comparative judgment task. All children were approximately seven years old and received, in the case of the hearing-impaired children, their assistive hearing device before the age of two. The online tool D-PAC was used to administer the comparative judgement task. The listeners compared stimuli in pairs and decided which stimulus sounded best. This method ultimately leads to a ranking in which all stimuli are represented according to their overall perceived speech quality. The main result is that the speech of normally hearing children was preferred by the listeners. This indicates that, even after several years of device use, the speech quality of hearing-impaired children is perceived as different from that of normally hearing children. Within the group of hearing-impaired children, cochlear implanted children were judged to exhibit higher speech quality than acoustically hearing aided children, especially after a longer device use. The speech quality of the latter group, on the other hand, remained practically stable. Listeners, irrespectively of their degree of experience with (hearing-impaired) children’s speech, completed the task similarly. In other words: the difference between the overall perceived speech quality of normally hearing and hearing-impaired children is salient for all listener groups and they all slightly preferred children with a cochlear implant over children with an acoustic hearing aid.

scholarly journals Speech and Sound Quality Recognition in Adults Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-205
Author(s):  
Leehwa Park ◽  
Soo Hee Oh
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Pressure ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Pressure Level ◽  
Story Comprehension ◽  
Monosyllabic Word ◽  
Quality Dimensions ◽  
Basic Evaluation

Purpose: Recent bimodal studies identified a lack of bimodal evaluation and fitting protocols to improve bimodal benefits. The purpose of this study is to measure bimodal benefits in speech and sound quality recognition and identify bimodal fitting issues with adult cochlear implant listeners to establish bimodal fitting guidelines and evaluation protocol.Methods: A total of 20 adult cochlear implant users were participated in this study. The experimental procedures included basic evaluation, hearing aid evaluation, and bimodal benefits evaluation. In order to evaluate bimodal benefits, speech and sound quality recognition tests were performed. Matrix sentences in quiet and noise (5 and 10 dB sound pressure level), consonant-vowel-consonant words, and story comprehension tasks were provided. Participants judged sound qualities for six sound quality dimensions and a tester performed real ear measurements to verify hearing aid gains.Results: Results showed that bimodal listeners had some bimodal benefits in the sentence and monosyllabic word recognition in quiet. The benefits of sound quality judgments were also observed for six sound quality dimensions. Bimodal cochlear implant listeners of this study demonstrated less real-ear insertion gains than target gains across test frequencies.Conclusion: Speech and sound quality recognition tests are useful tools to measure bimodal benefits. Additional care for bimodal listeners is needed to optimize bimodal fitting and improve the quality of bimodal hearing aid fitting services.

Postlingually Deaf Adults of All Ages Derive Equal Benefits from Unilateral Multichannel Cochlear Implant

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 637-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Park ◽  
David B. Shipp ◽  
Joseph M. Chen ◽  
Julian M. Nedzelski ◽  
Vincent Y.W. Lin
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Perceived Quality Of Life ◽  
Deaf Adults

Background: Controversy still exists regarding the impact of age on speech recognition following cochlear implant in postlingually deaf adults. In some studies elderly recipients did not perform as well as younger patients on standard speech recognition tests. Furthermore, previous studies have shown that cochlear implantation improves quality of life, as measured by self-administered questionnaires, but the sample sizes of these studies have been relatively small, thus making age stratification a challenge. Purpose: The primary objective was to assess whether the age at which a patient receives a unilateral cochlear implant affects improvements in speech recognition scores and perceived quality of life. A secondary objective was to determine whether preoperative use of hearing aids correlates with improvement in speech recognition and perceived quality of life after cochlear implantation. Research Design: A retrospective study in a tertiary referral center. Patients: A total of 161 postlingually deaf adults, who were divided based on age (<50, 50–65, >65) and on prior hearing aid(s) use. Intervention: All patients received a unilateral multichannel cochlear implant. Data Collection and Analysis: Speech recognition was quantified by percent correct scores on the Hearing in Noise Test sentences delivered in a quiet setting only (HINT%), and quality of life was quantified by the Hearing Handicap Inventory (HHI) before and 1 yr after cochlear implantation. Results: Speech recognition, as measured by HINT%, improved significantly and to similar extents in all three age groups following cochlear implantation. Similarly, quality of life as quantified by HHI improved markedly and to similar extents in all age groups. Whether hearing aids were used pre-implant, or whether the cochlear implant (CI) was implanted on the same side or contralateral to the hearing aid side, had no substantial effect on the patients’ performances on either speech recognition or quality of life. Moreover, there were no statistically significant correlations between pre-implant speech recognition scores and pre-implant quality of life scores or between postimplant speech recognition scores and postimplant quality of life scores. Conclusion: The findings of the present study demonstrate that cochlear implantation improves HINT% and HHI scores to similar extents across all age groups. This finding suggests that elderly patients may derive speech recognition and quality of life benefits similar to those of younger patients and that age should not be an essential factor in the determination of CI candidacy. Furthermore, prior use of a hearing aid, and its location in relation to the cochlear implant, does not influence the extent of improvement in speech recognition or quality of life measurements following cochlear implantation.

scholarly journals Quality of life after intervention with a cochlear implant or hearing aid

2016 ◽  
Vol 126 (9) ◽  
pp. 2110-2115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin J. Contrera ◽  
Joshua Betz ◽  
Lingsheng Li ◽  
Caitlin R. Blake ◽  
Yoon K. Sung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aid

Can Behavioral Speech-In-Noise Tests Improve the Quality of Hearing Aid Fittings?

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-14
Author(s):  
Robert Moore ◽  
Susan Gordon-Hickey
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Performance Test ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
Perceptual Performance ◽  
Noise Test

The purpose of this article is to propose 4 dimensions for consideration in hearing aid fittings and 4 tests to evaluate those dimensions. The 4 dimensions and tests are (a) working memory, evaluated by the Revised Speech Perception in Noise test (Bilger, Nuetzel, & Rabinowitz, 1984); (b) performance in noise, evaluated by the Quick Speech in Noise test (QSIN; Killion, Niquette, Gudmundsen, Revit, & Banerjee, 2004); (c) acceptance of noise, evaluated by the Acceptable Noise Level test (ANL; Nabelek, Tucker, & Letowski, 1991); and (d) performance versus perception, evaluated by the Perceptual–Performance test (PPT; Saunders & Cienkowski, 2002). The authors discuss the 4 dimensions and tests in the context of improving the quality of hearing aid fittings.

scholarly journals Qualitative assessment of YouTube videos as a source of patient information for cochlear implant surgery

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
C Thomas ◽  
J Westwood ◽  
G F Butt
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Qualitative Assessment ◽  
Supplementary Information ◽  
Implant Surgery ◽  
Critical Elements ◽  
Positive Elements ◽  
Cochlear Implant Surgery ◽  
Youtube Videos

Abstract Background YouTube is increasingly used as a source of healthcare information. This study evaluated the quality of videos on YouTube about cochlear implants. Methods YouTube was searched using the phrase ‘cochlear implant’. The first 60 results were screened by two independent reviewers. A modified Discern tool was used to evaluate the quality of each video. Results Forty-seven videos were analysed. The mean overall Discern score was 2.0 out of 5.0. Videos scored higher for describing positive elements such as the benefits of a cochlear implant (mean score of 3.4) and scored lower for negative elements such as the risks of cochlear implant surgery (mean score of 1.3). Conclusion The quality of information regarding cochlear implant surgery on YouTube is highly variable. These results demonstrated a bias towards the positive attributes of cochlear implants, with little mention of the risks or uncertainty involved. Although videos may be useful as supplementary information, critical elements required to make an informed decision are lacking. This is of particular importance when patients are considering surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document