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.

Comparison of Speech Perception in Background Noise With Acceptance of Background Noise in Aided and Unaided Conditions

2004 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 1001-1011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna K. Nabelek ◽  
Joanna W. Tampas ◽  
Samuel B. Burchfield
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level

Background noise is a significant factor influencing hearing-aid satisfaction and is a major reason for rejection of hearing aids. Attempts have been made by previous researchers to relate the use of hearing aids to speech perception in noise (SPIN), with an expectation of improved speech perception followed by an increased acceptance of hearing aids. Unfortunately, SPIN was not related to hearing-aid use or satisfaction. A new measure of listener reaction to background noise has been proposed. The acceptable noise level (ANL), expressed in decibels, is defined as a difference between the most comfortable listening level for speech and the highest background noise level that is acceptable when listening to and following a story. The ANL measure assumes that speech understanding in noise may not be as important as is the willingness to listen in the presence of noise. It has been established that people who accept background noise have smaller ANLs and tend to be "good" users of hearing aids. Conversely, people who cannot accept background noise have larger ANLs and may only use hearing aids occasionally or reject them altogether. Because this is a new measure, it was important to determine the reliability of the ANL over time with and without hearing aids, to determine the effect of acclimatization to hearing aids, and to compare the ANL to well-established measures such as speech perception scores collected with the SPIN test. Results from 50 listeners indicate that for both good and occasional hearing aid users, the ANL is comparable in reliability to the SPIN test and that both measures do not change with acclimatization. The ANLs and SPIN scores are unrelated. Although the SPIN scores improve with amplification, the ANLs are unaffected by amplification, suggesting that the ANL is inherent to an individual and can be established prior to hearing aid fitting as a possible predictor of hearing-aid use. KEY WORDS : background noise, hearing aids, acceptable noise level, speech perception in noise

The Contribution of a Frequency-Compression Hearing Aid to Contralateral Cochlear Implant Performance

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (02) ◽  
pp. 105-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann E. Perreau ◽  
Ruth A. Bentler ◽  
Richard S. Tyler
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Vowel Perception ◽  
Frequency Compression ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact

Background: Frequency-lowering signal processing in hearing aids has re-emerged as an option to improve audibility of the high frequencies by expanding the input bandwidth. Few studies have investigated the usefulness of the scheme as an option for bimodal users (i.e., combined use of a cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid). In this study, that question was posed. Purpose: The purposes of this study were (1) to determine if frequency compression was a better bimodal option than conventional amplification and (2) to determine the impact of a frequency-compression hearing aid on speech recognition abilities. Research Design: There were two separate experiments in this study. The first experiment investigated the contribution of a frequency-compression hearing aid to contralateral cochlear implant (CI) performance for localization and speech perception in noise. The second experiment assessed monaural consonant and vowel perception in quiet using the frequency-compression and conventional hearing aid without the use of a contralateral CI or hearing aid. Study Sample: Ten subjects fitted with a cochlear implant and hearing aid participated in the first experiment. Seventeen adult subjects with a cochlear implant and hearing aid or two hearing aids participated in the second experiment. To be included, subjects had to have a history of postlingual deafness, a moderate or moderate-to-severe hearing loss, and have not worn this type of frequency-lowering hearing aid previously. Data Collection and Analysis: In the first experiment, performance using the frequency-compression and conventional hearing aids was assessed on tests of sound localization, speech perception in a background of noise, and two self-report questionnaires. In the second experiment, consonant and vowel perception in quiet was assessed monaurally for the two conditions. In both experiments, subjects alternated daily between a frequency-compression and conventional hearing aid for 2 mo. The parameters of frequency compression were set individually for each subject, and audibility was measured for the frequency compression and conventional hearing aid programs by comparing estimations of the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) using a modified algorithm (Bentler et al, 2011). In both experiments, the outcome measures were administered following the hearing aid fitting to assess performance at baseline and after 2 mo of use. Results: For this group of subjects, the results revealed no significant difference between the frequency-compression and conventional hearing aid on tests of localization and consonant recognition. Spondee-in-noise and vowel perception scores were significantly higher with the conventional hearing aid compared to the frequency-compression hearing aid after 2 mo of use. Conclusions: These results suggest that, for the subjects in this study, frequency compression is not a better bimodal option than conventional amplification. In addition, speech perception may be negatively influenced by frequency compression because formant frequencies are too severely compressed and can no longer be distinguished.

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 Auditory Speech Perception Development in Relation to Patient's Age with Cochlear Implant

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (03) ◽  
pp. 206-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace Ciscare ◽  
Erika Mantello ◽  
Carla Fortunato-Queiroz ◽  
Miguel Hyppolito ◽  
Ana Reis
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Auditory Thresholds ◽  
Caregiver Education ◽  
Auditory Speech ◽  
Hearing Aid Use

Introduction A cochlear implant in adolescent patients with pre-lingual deafness is still a debatable issue. Objective The objective of this study is to analyze and compare the development of auditory speech perception in children with pre-lingual auditory impairment submitted to cochlear implant, in different age groups in the first year after implantation. Method This is a retrospective study, documentary research, in which we analyzed 78 reports of children with severe bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, unilateral cochlear implant users of both sexes. They were divided into three groups: G1, 22 infants aged less than 42 months; G2, 28 infants aged between 43 to 83 months; and G3, 28 older than 84 months. We collected medical record data to characterize the patients, auditory thresholds with cochlear implants, assessment of speech perception, and auditory skills. Results There was no statistical difference in the association of the results among groups G1, G2, and G3 with sex, caregiver education level, city of residence, and speech perception level. There was a moderate correlation between age and hearing aid use time, age and cochlear implants use time. There was a strong correlation between age and the age cochlear implants was performed, hearing aid use time and age CI was performed. Conclusion There was no statistical difference in the speech perception in relation to the patient's age when cochlear implant was performed. There were statistically significant differences for the variables of auditory deprivation time between G3 - G1 and G2 - G1 and hearing aid use time between G3 - G2 and G3 - G1.

scholarly journals Aiding and Occluding the Contralateral Ear in Implanted Children with Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (09) ◽  
pp. 567-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Runge ◽  
Jamie Jensen ◽  
David R. Friedland ◽  
Ruth Y. Litovsky ◽  
Sergey Tarima
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Auditory Neuropathy ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Predictive Variables ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Contralateral Ear

Background: The challenges associated with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD) are due primarily to temporal impairment and therefore tend to affect perception of low- to midfrequency sounds. A common treatment option for severe impairment in ANSD is cochlear implantation, and because the degree of impairment is unrelated to degree of hearing loss by audiometric thresholds, this population may have significant acoustic sensitivity in the contralateral ear. Clinically, the question arises as to how we should treat the contralateral ear in this population when there is acoustic hearing—should we plug it, amplify it, implant it, or leave it alone? Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of acute amplification and plugging of the contralateral ear compared to no intervention in implanted children with ANSD and aidable contralateral hearing. It was hypothesized that due to impaired temporal processing in ANSD, contralateral acoustic input would interfere with speech perception achieved with the cochlear implant (CI) alone; therefore, speech perception performance will decline with amplification and improve with occlusion. Research Design: Prospective within-subject comparison. Adaptive speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) for monosyllable and spondee word stimuli were measured in quiet and in noise for the intervention configurations. Study Sample: Nine children treated at the Medical College of Wisconsin Koss Cochlear Implant Program participated in the study. Inclusion criteria for this study were children diagnosed with ANSD who were unilaterally implanted, had aidable hearing in the contralateral ear (defined as a three-frequency pure-tone average of ≤80 dB HL), had at least 1 yr of cochlear implant experience, and were able to perform the speech perception task. Intervention: We compared SRT with the CI alone to SRTs with interventions of cochlear implant with a contralateral hearing aid (CI+HA) and cochlear implant with a contralateral earplug (CI+plug). Data Collection and Analysis: SRTs were measured and compared within subjects across listening conditions. Within-subject comparisons were analyzed using paired t-tests, and analyses of predictive variables for effects of contralateral intervention were analyzed using linear regression. Results: Contrary to the hypothesis, the bimodal CI+HA configuration showed a significant improvement in mean performance over the CI-alone configuration in quiet (p = .04). In noise, SRTs were obtained for six subjects, and no significant bimodal benefit was observed (p = .09). There were no consistent effects of occlusion observed across subjects and stimulus conditions. Degree of bimodal benefit showed a significant relationship with performance with the CI alone, with greater bimodal benefit associated with poorer CI-alone performance (p = .01). This finding, however, was limited by floor effects. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that children with ANSD who are experienced cochlear implant users may benefit from contralateral amplification, particularly for moderate cochlear implant performers. It is unclear from these data whether long-term contralateral hearing aid use in real-world situations would ultimately benefit this population; however, a hearing aid trial is recommended with assessment of bimodal benefit over time. These data may help inform clinical guidelines for determining optimal hearing configurations for unilaterally implanted children with ANSD, particularly when considering candidacy for sequential cochlear implantation.

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 Auditory Training Using Remembering the Order of Sentences for the Elderly Who Wear Hearing Aids: Is it Effective for Speech Perception in Noise, Working Memory and Reasoning Ability?

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-132
Author(s):  
Donghoon Kang ◽  
So Hyun Kim ◽  
Dajung Yun ◽  
Junghwa Bahng
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Working Memory ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Auditory Training ◽  
Reasoning Ability ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Reasoning Test

Purpose: The present study examines auditory training outcomes in terms of speech perception in noise, working memory, reasoning ability, and subjective hearing aid satisfaction. Methods: Ten older adults who wear hearing aids (mean age: 71.6) voluntarily participated in the study. For the training material, 78 sentence sets composed of 3 to 5 sentences were used. During the auditory training, participants tried to remember the order of sentences. Among the 78 sentence sets, 45 contained clues and the rest did not. Each participant underwent assessments including speech perception in noise and digit spans and reasoning test and completed a self-report hearing aid satisfaction questionnaire both pre- and post-auditory training. The participants completed eight sessions of the auditory training. Results: The results showed a statistically significant increase in speech recognition ability in noise, short-term memory, and working memory, as well as satisfaction with hearing aid use. Despite a slight increase on the reasoning test, there was no statistically significant improvement.Conclusion: The results of this study suggested that the auditory training in remembering the order of sentences improved speech perception in noise, sensory and working memory, and subjective satisfaction with hearing aids. Future research can investigate more effective auditory training tools to improve the various cognitive skills and communication ability of older adults who wear hearing aids.

scholarly journals The Effects of Manufacturer’s Prefit and Real-Ear Fitting on the Predicted Speech Perception of Children with Severe to Profound Hearing Loss

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (05) ◽  
pp. 346-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tian Kar Quar ◽  
Cila Umat ◽  
Yong Yee Chew
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
High Input ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
High Frequency Region ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractThe use of probe microphone measures in hearing aid verification is often neglected or not fully used by practitioners. Some practitioners rely on simulated gain and output provided by manufacturer's fitting software to verify hearing aids.This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of manufacturer’s prefit procedure in matching the prescribed real-ear targets. It also aims to study its correlated impact on the predicted speech perception in children with severe and profound hearing loss.This cross-sectional experiment was carried out by measuring the output of hearing aids based on prefit versus real-ear at low-, moderate-, and high-input levels. The predicted speech perception for different hearing aid fittings was determined based on the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII).Sixteen children (28 ears) aged between 4 and 7 yr, with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss took part in the study.Two different types of hearing aids (Phonak and Unitron) were programmed based on their respective manufacturers’ Desired Sensation Levels (DSL) v5 Child procedure. The hearing aids were then verified using coupler-based measurements and individual real-ear-to-coupler differences. The prefit outputs were compared with the DSL v5 Child–prescribed outputs at low-, moderate-, and high-input levels. The hearing aids were then adjusted to closely match the prescribed output. The SIIs were calculated for the fittings before and after adjustment.Sixty four percent of fittings that were based on the prefit procedure achieved the optimal fit-to-targets, with less than 5-dB RMS deviations from the DSL v5 Child targets. After adjusting the hearing aids to attempt to meet the DSL v5 Child targets, 75% of the ears tested achieved the optimal fit-to-targets. On average, hearing aid outputs generated by the manufacturer’s prefit procedure had good and reasonable agreement with the DSL v5 Child–prescribed outputs at low- and mid-frequencies. Nonetheless, at 4000 Hz, the hearing aid output mostly fell below the DSL v5 Child–prescribed outputs. This was still the case even after the hearing aid was adjusted to attempt to match with the targets. At low input level, some prefit outputs were found to be higher than the prescribed outputs. The deviations of prefit outputs from the prescribed outputs were dependent on the type of hearing aid and input levels. There was no significant difference between the SII calculated for fittings based on the prefit and adjusted fit.Prefit procedure tends to produce outputs that were below the DSL v5 Child–prescribed outputs, with the largest mean difference at 4000 Hz. Even though the hearing aid gains were adjusted to attempt to match with the targets, the outputs were still below the targets. The limitations of hearing aids to match the DSL v5 Child targets at high-frequency region have resulted in no improvement in the children’s predicted speech perception.

scholarly journals Effects of Removing Low-Frequency Electric Information on Speech Perception With Bimodal Hearing

2016 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer R. Fowler ◽  
Jessica L. Eggleston ◽  
Kelly M. Reavis ◽  
Garnett P. McMillan ◽  
Lina A. J. Reiss
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Cutoff Frequency ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Improve Performance ◽  
Frequency Information ◽  
Bimodal Condition ◽  
Contralateral Ear ◽  
Bimodal Hearing

PurposeThe objective was to determine whether speech perception could be improved for bimodal listeners (those using a cochlear implant [CI] in one ear and hearing aid in the contralateral ear) by removing low-frequency information provided by the CI, thereby reducing acoustic–electric overlap.MethodSubjects were adult CI subjects with at least 1 year of CI experience. Nine subjects were evaluated in the CI-only condition (control condition), and 26 subjects were evaluated in the bimodal condition. CIs were programmed with 4 experimental programs in which the low cutoff frequency (LCF) was progressively raised. Speech perception was evaluated using Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant words in quiet, AzBio sentences in background babble, and spondee words in background babble.ResultsThe CI-only group showed decreased speech perception in both quiet and noise as the LCF was raised. Bimodal subjects with better hearing in the hearing aid ear (< 60 dB HL at 250 and 500 Hz) performed best for words in quiet as the LCF was raised. In contrast, bimodal subjects with worse hearing (> 60 dB HL at 250 and 500 Hz) performed similarly to the CI-only group.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that reducing low-frequency overlap of the CI and contralateral hearing aid may improve performance in quiet for some bimodal listeners with better hearing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document