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

Fowler, Jennifer R.; Eggleston, Jessica; Reavis, Kelly M.; McMillan, Garnett P.; Reiss, Lina A. J.

doi:10.1044/2015_jslhr-h-15-0247

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(61 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fowler et al . 51 found better speech performance in bimodal listeners with good residual acoustic hearing when the low CI input frequency was increased, presumably reducing tonotopic mismatch. Peters et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Integration of acoustic and electric hearing is better in the same ear than across ears

Galvin

Wang

2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in cochlear implant (CI) technology allow for acoustic and electric hearing to be combined within the same ear (electric-acoustic stimulation, or EAS) and/or across ears (bimodal listening). Integration efficiency (IE; the ratio between observed and predicted performance for acoustic-electric hearing) can be used to estimate how well acoustic and electric hearing are combined. The goal of this study was to evaluate factors that affect IE in EAS and bimodal listening. Vowel recognition was measured in normal-hearing subjects listening to simulations of unimodal, EAS, and bimodal listening. The input/output frequency range for acoustic hearing was 0.1–0.6 kHz. For CI simulations, the output frequency range was 1.2–8.0 kHz to simulate a shallow insertion depth and the input frequency range was varied to provide increasing amounts of speech information and tonotopic mismatch. Performance was best when acoustic and electric hearing was combined in the same ear. IE was significantly better for EAS than for bimodal listening; IE was sensitive to tonotopic mismatch for EAS, but not for bimodal listening. These simulation results suggest acoustic and electric hearing may be more effectively and efficiently combined within rather than across ears, and that tonotopic mismatch should be minimized to maximize the benefit of acoustic-electric hearing, especially for EAS.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Integration of acoustic and electric hearing is better in the same ear than across ears

Galvin

Wang

2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One reason for poor integration across the ears could be mis-matched inputs across from the acoustic ear with electric ear. Prior studies (e.g., Fowler et al, 2016;Guerit et al, 2014;Wess et al, 2017) show that there are two types of mismatch that can affect performance: (1) a mismatch in the frequency inputs across the ears, and (2) a temporal mismatch between the stimulation from the CI and the acoustic input in the contralateral ear. Further, abnormally broad spectral fusion in hearing-impaired listening may also underlie the poorer performance (Reiss et al, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restoration of spatial hearing in adult cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, cochlear implants (CIs) have been provided in growing numbers to people with not only bilateral deafness but also to people with unilateral hearing loss, at times in order to alleviate tinnitus. This study presents audiological data from 15 adult participants (ages 48 ± 12 years) with single sided deafness. Results are presented from 9/15 adults, who received a CI (SSD-CI) in the deaf ear and were tested in Acoustic or Acoustic + CI hearing modes, and 6/15 adults who are planning to receive a CI, and were tested in the unilateral condition only. Testing included (1) audiometric measures of threshold, (2) speech understanding for CNC words and AzBIO sentences, (3) tinnitus handicap inventory, (4) sound localization with stationary sound sources, and (5) perceived auditory motion. Results showed that when listening to sentences in quiet, performance was excellent in the Acoustic and Acoustic + CI conditions. In noise, performance was similar between Acoustic and Acoustic + CI conditions in 4/6 participants tested, and slightly worse in the Acoustic + CI in 2/6 participants. In some cases, the CI provided reduced tinnitus handicap scores. When testing sound localization ability, the Acoustic + CI condition resulted in improved sound localization RMS error of 29.2° (SD: ±6.7°) compared to 56.6° (SD: ±16.5°) in the Acoustic-only condition. Preliminary results suggest that the perception of motion direction, whereby subjects are required to process and compare directional cues across multiple locations, is impaired when compared with that of normal hearing subjects.

show abstract

“…It may be more important for the audiologist fitting the HA to focus more on providing amplification in the low- and mid-frequency region, and less important to try to provide high-frequency speech information (made available by the CI). More information is becoming available regarding options for fitting the HA and the CI for bimodal patients as results from research studies relevant to bimodal fitting strategies become available (e.g., English, Plant, Maciejczyk, & Cowan, 2016 ; Fowler, Eggleston, Reavis, McMillan, & Reiss, 2016 ; Neuman & Svirsky, 2014 ; Zhang, Dorman, Gifford, & Moore, 2014 ). The recent move by CI companies to link their CI with specific HAs is also leading to suggested fitting strategies for the CI/HA pair (e.g., Advanced Bionics, 2016 ; Stender, 2016 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Reported Usage, Functional Benefit, and Audiologic Characteristics of Cochlear Implant Patients Who Use a Contralateral Hearing Aid

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ninety-four unilateral CI patients with bimodal listening experience (CI plus HA in contralateral ear) completed a questionnaire that focused on attitudes toward hearing aid use postimplantation, patterns of usage, and perceived bimodal benefits in daily life. Eighty participants continued HA use and 14 discontinued HA use at the time of the questionnaire. Participant responses provided useful information for counseling patients both before and after implantation. The majority of continuing bimodal (CI plus HA) participants reported adapting to using both devices within 3 months and also reported that they heard better bimodally in quiet, noisy, and reverberant conditions. They also perceived benefits including improved sound quality, better music enjoyment, and sometimes a perceived sense of acoustic balance. Those who discontinued HA use found either that using the HA did not provide additional benefit over the CI alone or that using the HA degraded the signal from the CI. Because there was considerable overlap in the audiograms and in speech recognition performance in the unimplanted ear between the two groups, we recommend that unilateral CI recipients are counseled to continue to use the HA in the contralateral ear postimplantation in order to determine whether or not they receive functional or perceived benefit from using both devices together.

show abstract

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

Cited by 16 publications

References 48 publications

Integration of acoustic and electric hearing is better in the same ear than across ears

Integration of acoustic and electric hearing is better in the same ear than across ears

Restoration of spatial hearing in adult cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness

Self-Reported Usage, Functional Benefit, and Audiologic Characteristics of Cochlear Implant Patients Who Use a Contralateral Hearing Aid

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About