Minimum Speech Test Battery for Postlingually Deafened Adult Cochlear Implant Patients

Luxford, William M.; Surgery, Neck

doi:10.1067/mhn.2001.113035

Cited by 78 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, a HINT sentence score of 100% correct was associated with CNC word scores of between 20% and 94% correct. The authors concluded that the HINT sentence task was not a suitable tool for the assessment of speech recognition in quiet, and should only be administered in its intended adaptive format as per the recommendations of Luxford and colleagues [36]. Our results are consistent with those of Gifford et al [27], with the majority of participants obtaining scores of ≥ 85% correct, even with a 10dB SNR.…”

Section: Speech Recognitionsupporting

confidence: 86%

A comparison of the speech recognition and pitch ranking abilities of children using a unilateral cochlear implant, bimodal stimulation or bilateral hearing aids

Looi

Radford

2011

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe present study compared the speech recognition and pitch ranking abilities of normally-hearing children (n = 15) to children using a cochlear implant (CI) alone (n = 8), bilateral hearing aids (HAs) (n = 6), or bimodal stimulation (BMS) (n = 9). It was hypothesised that users of BMS would score higher on tasks of speech and pitch perception than children using a CI alone, but not children using HAs. MethodsParticipants were assessed on tasks of monosyllabic word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in quiet and noise (10dB signal-to-noise ratio), and a pitch ranking task using pairs of sung vowels one, half, and a quarter of an octave apart. ResultsThere were no significant differences between the mean percentage-correct scores of the four participant groups for either words in quiet or sentences in quiet and noise. However, the proportion of bimodal users who scored > 80% correct (80%) was significantly greater than the proportion of highscoring unilateral CI (25%) or bilateral HA users (17%). Contrary to expectations, there was also no significant difference between the pitch ranking scores of users of BMS and users of a CI alone for all three interval sizes (p < 0.05, RM-ANOVA). However participants using only acoustic hearing (i.e. the NH and HA groups) scored significantly higher than participants using electrical stimulation (i.e. the CI and BMS groups) on the pitch ranking task (p < 0.05; RM-ANOVA). ConclusionsContrary to findings in postlingually deafened adults, we found no significant bimodal advantage for pitch perception in prelingually deafened children. However, the performance of children using electrical stimulation was significantly poorer than children using only acoustic stimulation. Further research is required to investigate the contribution of the non-implanted ears of users of BMS to pitch perception, and the effect of hearing loss on the development of pitch perception in children.

show abstract

Section: Speech Recognitionsupporting

confidence: 86%

A comparison of the speech recognition and pitch ranking abilities of children using a unilateral cochlear implant, bimodal stimulation or bilateral hearing aids

Looi

Radford

2011

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The MSTB committee also recommended that the HINT sentences can be presented in fixed-level noise at either +10, +5, or even 0 dB SNR as necessary to avoid ceiling effects [Nilsson et al, 1996]. However, in a more recent document describing post-implant assessment, Luxford et al [2001] suggested the administration of the HINT in its originally intended adaptive format with background noise so that as technology continues to improve, cochlear implant patient performance could continue to be assessed. This strategy would allow for comparisons both within and between subjects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In light of marked improvements in postoperative patient performance, recommendations for an updated minimum speech test battery (MSTB) were provided by a committee of representatives from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, the American Academy of Audiology, and a selected group from the cochlear implant manufacturers [Nilsson et al, 1996;Luxford et al, 2001]. The committee recommended that patient performance should be assessed with both word and sentence recognition materials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The committee recommended that patient performance should be assessed with both word and sentence recognition materials. The rationale was that the graded level of difficulty across these two measures would allow for the assessment of longitudinal patient performance without the confounds of ceiling or floor effects [Nilsson et al, 1996;Luxford et al, 2001].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Speech Recognition Materials and Ceiling Effects: Considerations for Cochlear Implant Programs

Gifford

Shallop²,

Peterson³

2008

Audiol Neurotol

301

236

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implant recipients have demonstrated remarkable increases in speech perception since US FDA approval was granted in 1984. Improved performance is due to a number of factors including improved cochlear implant technology, evolving speech coding strategies, and individuals with increasingly more residual hearing receiving implants. Despite this evolution, the same recommendations for pre- and postimplant speech recognition testing have been in place for over 10 years in the United States. To determine whether new recommendations are warranted, speech perception performance was assessed for 156 adult, postlingually deafened implant recipients as well as 50 hearing aid users on monosyllabic word recognition (CNC) and sentence recognition in quiet (HINT and AzBio sentences) and in noise (BKB-SIN). Results demonstrated that for HINT sentences in quiet, 28% of the subjects tested achieved maximum performance of 100% correct and that scores did not agree well with monosyllables (CNC) or sentence recognition in noise (BKB-SIN). For a more difficult sentence recognition material (AzBio), only 0.7% of the subjects achieved 100% performance and scores were in much better agreement with monosyllables and sentence recognition in noise. These results suggest that more difficult materials are needed to assess speech perception performance of postimplant patients – and perhaps also for determining implant candidacy.

show abstract

“…This approach is evident in several revisions of the test batteries to address the limitations of the previous ones (Gifford et al, 2008, Dowell et al, 2004, Luxford et al, 2001). In the most recent version of the minimum speech test battery for post-lingually deafened adult CI candidates and recipients, the Arizona Biomedical Institute sentence test (AzBio) (Spahr et al, 2012) has replaced the HINT sentence test by the Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech perception scores in cochlear implant recipients: An analysis of ceiling effects in the CUNY sentence test (Quiet) in post-lingually deafened cochlear implant recipients

Ebrahimi-Madiseh

Eikelboom

Jayakody

et al. 2016

Cochlear Implants International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical utility of the CUNY sentence test in a cohort of post-lingually deafened CI recipients over time. The distribution of all post-operative CUNY test scores skewed to the right with 82% of test scores reaching above 90%.Discussion: This study demonstrates that the CUNY test cannot be used as a valid tool to measure the speech perception skills of post-lingually deafened CI recipients over time. This may be overcome by using adaptive test protocols or linguistically, cognitively or contextually demanding test materials. Conclusion:The high percentage of CI recipients achieving ceiling scores for the CUNY sentence test in quiet at three months post-implantation, questions the validity of using CUNY in CI assessment test battery and limits its application for use in longitudinal studies evaluating CI outcomes. Further studies are required to examine different methods to overcome this problem.

show abstract

Minimum Speech Test Battery for Postlingually Deafened Adult Cochlear Implant Patients

Cited by 78 publications

References 6 publications

A comparison of the speech recognition and pitch ranking abilities of children using a unilateral cochlear implant, bimodal stimulation or bilateral hearing aids

A comparison of the speech recognition and pitch ranking abilities of children using a unilateral cochlear implant, bimodal stimulation or bilateral hearing aids

Speech Recognition Materials and Ceiling Effects: Considerations for Cochlear Implant Programs

Speech perception scores in cochlear implant recipients: An analysis of ceiling effects in the CUNY sentence test (Quiet) in post-lingually deafened cochlear implant recipients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About