The Benefits of Combining Acoustic and Electric Stimulation for the Recognition of Speech, Voice and Melodies

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

doi:10.1159/000111782

Cited by 254 publications

(262 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

227

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, upon further examination we found that the proportion of users in the BMS group (80%) who obtained scores of ≥ 80% correct was significantly larger than the proportion of CI-only (25%; p = 0.038) and HA-only users (16.7%; p = 0.022) who did the same. This is consistent with the results of Dorman et al [5].…”

Section: Speech Recognitionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…Gifford and colleagues [27] found no significant difference in the speech recognition in noise performance of 112 unilateral CI recipients and 11 BMS users. Similar results were found by Dorman et al [5] who assessed 65 adults using a unilateral CI and 15 using BMS on a sentence recognition in noise task (10 dB SNR) and an arrhythmic melody recognition task. There were no significant differences between the groups on either task.…”

Section: Existing Between-group Comparisonssupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Similarly, the proportion of BMS users who scored ≥ 85% correct on the melody recognition task (53%) was significantly greater than the proportion of CI-only users who scored ≥ 85% correct on the same task (11%). Overall, it would seem that although the addition of a contralateral HA can improve the speech in noise and melody recognition performance of individual CI users, the strongest-performing CI users may still attain levels of performance that are similar to those using BMS [5]. However, the proportion of BMS users who obtain high scores on a given measure appears to be greater than the proportion of CI-only users who do the same [4].…”

Section: Existing Between-group Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Recently, two studies compared the speech recognition performance of separate groups of participants using a unilateral CI or BMS [5,27]. Gifford and colleagues [27] found no significant difference in the speech recognition in noise performance of 112 unilateral CI recipients and 11 BMS users.…”

Section: Existing Between-group Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This residual hearing can be utilised through the use of a hearing aid (HA) in the non-implanted ear of a CI user; this is known as bimodal stimulation (BMS). The additional pitch cues provided via this low-frequency hearing have been associated with improved pitch perception [4,5,6], and improved speech recognition in quiet [7] and noise [6,8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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: 94%

Section: Existing Between-group Comparisonssupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Existing Between-group Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Existing Between-group Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Word Stress in Speech Perception

Cutler

Jesse

2021

The Handbook of Speech Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of a revised indication for determining adult cochlear implant candidacy

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the use of monosyllabic word recognition versus sentence recognition to determine candidacy and long-term benefit for cochlear implantation. Study Design: Prospective multi-center single-subject design. Methods: A total of 21 adults aged 18 years and older with bilateral moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss and low monosyllabic word scores received unilateral cochlear implantation. The consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word test was the central measure of pre- and postoperative performance. Additional speech understanding tests included the Hearing in Noise Test sentences in quiet and AzBio sentences +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Quality of life (QoL) was measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and Health Utilities Index. Results: Performance on sentence recognition reached the ceiling of the test after only 3 months of implant use. In contrast, none of the participants in this study reached a score of 80% on CNC word recognition, even at the 12-month postoperative test interval. Measures of QoL related to hearing were also significantly improved following implantation. Conclusion: Results of this study demonstrate that monosyllabic words are appropriate for determining preoperative candidate and measuring long-term postoperative speech recognition performance. Level of Evidence: 2c.

show abstract

The Benefits of Combining Acoustic and Electric Stimulation for the Recognition of Speech, Voice and Melodies

Cited by 254 publications

References 37 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

Word Stress in Speech Perception

Evaluation of a revised indication for determining adult cochlear implant candidacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About