Combined Electric and Contralateral Acoustic Hearing: Word and Sentence Recognition With Bimodal Hearing

Gifford, René H.; Dorman, Michael F.; McKarns, Sharon A.; Spahr, Anthony J.

doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/058)

Cited by 137 publications

(169 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

152

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, fine-structure-based pitch perception, even using impaired low-frequency acoustic hearing, is arguably superior to that obtained from conventional electric stimulation. Evidence for this arises from the well-documented improvements to speech reception in noise when low-frequency acoustic stimulation is added to electric stimulation (von Ilberg et al, 1999;Gantz and Turner, 2004;Gantz et al, 2005;Kong et al, 2005;Gifford et al, 2007;Dorman et al, 2008;Brown and Bacon, 2009a;Zhang et al, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Referred to variably as electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) or bimodal hearing, this configuration involves the use of residual low-frequency acoustic hearing in the ear either ipsilateral or contralateral to the CI (Gifford et al, 2010). The improvements to intelligibility in noise with this strategy are well-documented (e.g., von Ilberg et al, 1999;Gantz and Turner, 2004;Gantz et al, 2005;Kong et al, 2005;Gifford et al, 2007;Dorman et al, 2008;Brown and Bacon, 2009a;Zhang et al, 2010). Dorman et al (2008) reported that, in a babble background at a S/N of þ5 dB, CI users' sentence recognition improved by an average of 22 percentage points with the addition of contralateral acoustic stimulation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening

Tillery¹,

Brown²,

Bacon³

2012

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implant users report difficulty understanding speech in both noisy and reverberant environments. Electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) is known to improve speech intelligibility in noise. However, little is known about the potential benefits of EAS in reverberation, or about how such benefits relate to those observed in noise. The present study used EAS simulations to examine these questions. Sentences were convolved with impulse responses from a model of a room whose estimated reverberation times were varied from 0 to 1 sec. These reverberated stimuli were then vocoded to simulate electric stimulation, or presented as a combination of vocoder plus low-pass filtered speech to simulate EAS. Monaural sentence recognition scores were measured in two conditions: reverberated speech and speech in a reverberated noise. The long-term spectrum and amplitude modulations of the noise were equated to the reverberant energy, allowing a comparison of the effects of the interferer (speech vs noise). Results indicate that, at least in simulation, (1) EAS provides significant benefit in reverberation; (2) the benefits of EAS in reverberation may be underestimated by those in a comparable noise; and (3) the EAS benefit in reverberation likely arises from partially preserved cues in this background accessible via the low-frequency acoustic component.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening

Tillery¹,

Brown²,

Bacon³

2012

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(This ability is nonexistent or almost nil with a unilateral implant, as noted before.) Combined EAS also provides a substantial benefit for listening to speech in quiet, in noise, in competition with another talker, or in competition with a multi-talker babble, compared with either electric stimulation only or acoustic stimulation only (e.g., von Ilberg et al, 1999;Kiefer et al, 2002Kiefer et al, , 2005Gantz and Turner, 2003;Wilson et al, 2003;Gstoettner et al, 2004Gstoettner et al, , 2006Gantz et al, 2005Gantz et al, , 2006Kong et al, 2005;James et al, 2006;Gifford et al, 2007;Dorman et al, 2007;Turner et al, this issue). Indeed, in some cases the score for combined EAS is greater than the sum of the scores for the electric-only and acoustic-only conditions.…”

Section: Two Recent Advancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future

2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aims of this paper are to (i) provide a brief history of cochlear implants; (ii) present a status report on the current state of implant engineering and the levels of speech understanding enabled by that engineering; (iii) describe limitations of current signal processing strategies and (iv) suggest new directions for research. With current technology the "average" implant patient, when listening to predictable conversations in quiet, is able to communicate with relative ease. However, in an environment typical of a workplace the average patient has a great deal of difficulty. Patients who are "above average" in terms of speech understanding, can achieve 100% correct scores on the most difficult tests of speech understanding in quiet but also have significant difficulty when signals are presented in noise. The major factors in these outcomes appear to be (i) a loss of low-frequency, fine structure information possibly due to the envelope extraction algorithms common to cochlear implant signal processing; (ii) a limitation in the number of effective channels of stimulation due to overlap in electric fields from electrodes, and (iii) central processing deficits, especially for patients with poor speech understanding. Two recent developments, bilateral implants and combined electric and acoustic stimulation, have promise to remediate some of the difficulties experienced by patients in noise and to reinstate low-frequency fine structure information. If other possibilities are realized, e.g., electrodes that emit drugs to inhibit cell death following trauma and to induce the growth of neurites toward electrodes, then the future is very bright indeed.

show abstract

“…Acoustic information was presented to each subject's non-implanted ear. While the stimuli were presented to the same ear in simulation, previous work suggests that performance is similar between situations when acoustic cues are presented contralateral or ipsilateral to a cochlear implant (e.g., Gifford et al, 2007). Acoustic stimuli were either the lowpass condition (CI þ Lowpass) or the target F0 (CI þ target F0) condition from exp.…”

Section: Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

Fundamental frequency is critical to speech perception in noise in combined acoustic and electric hearing

Carroll

Tiaden²,

Zeng³

2011

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implant (CI) users have been shown to benefit from residual low-frequency hearing, specifically in pitch related tasks. It remains unclear whether this benefit is dependent on fundamental frequency (F0) or other acoustic cues. Three experiments were conducted to determine the role of F0, as well as its frequency modulated (FM) and amplitude modulated (AM) components, in speech recognition with a competing voice. In simulated CI listeners, the signal-to-noise ratio was varied to estimate the 50% correct response. Simulation results showed that the F0 cue contributes to a significant proportion of the benefit seen with combined acoustic and electric hearing, and additionally that this benefit is due to the FM rather than the AM component. In actual CI users, sentence recognition scores were collected with either the full F0 cue containing both the FM and AM components or the 500-Hz low-pass speech cue containing the F0 and additional harmonics. The F0 cue provided a benefit similar to the low-pass cue for speech in noise, but not in quiet. Poorer CI users benefited more from the F0 cue than better users. These findings suggest that F0 is critical to improving speech perception in noise in combined acoustic and electric hearing.

show abstract

Combined Electric and Contralateral Acoustic Hearing: Word and Sentence Recognition With Bimodal Hearing

Cited by 137 publications

References 20 publications

Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening

Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening

Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future

Fundamental frequency is critical to speech perception in noise in combined acoustic and electric hearing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About