| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
The Bionic Ear Institute, Melbourne, Australia
University of Melbourne and The Cochlear Implant Clinic, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
University of Melbourne
Contact author: Mansze Mok, Department of Otolaryngology, The University of Melbourne, 384-388 Albert Street, East Melbourne, Victoria 3002, Australia. Email: mokm{at}unimelb.edu.au
This study aimed to (a) investigate the effect of using a hearing aid in conjunction with a cochlear implant in opposite ears on speech perception in quiet and in noise, (b) identify the speech information obtained from a hearing aid that is additive to the information obtained from a cochlear implant, and (c) explore the relationship between aided thresholds in the nonimplanted ear and speech perception benefit from wearing a hearing aid in conjunction with a cochlear implant in opposite ears.
Fourteen adults who used the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system in 1 ear participated in the study. All participants had either used a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear for at least 75% of waking hours after cochlear implantation, and/or, hearing loss less than 90 dB HL in the low frequencies in the nonimplanted ear. Speech perception was evaluated in 3 conditions: cochlear implant alone (CI), hearing aid alone (HA), and cochlear implant in conjunction with hearing aid in opposite ears (CIHA). Three speech perception tests were used: consonant–vowel nucleus–consonant (CNC) words in quiet, City University of New York style (CUNY) sentences in coincident signal and noise, and spondees in coincidental and spatially separated signal and noise. Information transmission analyses were performed on the CNC responses.
Of the 14 participants tested, 6 showed significant bimodal benefit on open-set speech perception measures and 5 showed benefit on close-set spondees. However, 2 participants showed poorer speech perception with CIHA than CI in at least 1 of the speech perception tests. Results of information transmission analyses showed that bimodal benefit (performance with CIHA minus that with CI) in quiet arises from improved perception of the low frequency components in speech. Results showed that participants with poorer aided thresholds in the mid-to-high frequencies demonstrated greater bimodal benefit. It is possible that the mid-to-high frequency information provided by the hearing aids may be conflicting with the cochlear implants.
KEY WORDS: hearing aids, cochlear implants, bimodal, hearing aid and cochlear implant, speech perception
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Facebook 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Nittrouer and C. Chapman The Effects of Bilateral Electric and Bimodal Electric--Acoustic Stimulation on Language Development Trends in Amplification, September 1, 2009; 13(3): 190 - 205. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T.Y.C. Ching, E. van Wanrooy, and H. Dillon Binaural-Bimodal Fitting or Bilateral Implantation for Managing Severe to Profound Deafness: A Review Trends in Amplification, September 1, 2007; 11(3): 161 - 192. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. H. Gifford, M. F. Dorman, S. A. McKarns, and A. J. Spahr Combined Electric and Contralateral Acoustic Hearing: Word and Sentence Recognition With Bimodal Hearing J Speech Lang Hear Res, August 1, 2007; 50(4): 835 - 843. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. F. Patrick, P. A. Busby, and P. J. Gibson The Development of the Nucleus(R) FreedomTM Cochlear Implant System Trends in Amplification, December 1, 2006; 10(4): 175 - 200. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| All ASHA Journals | AJA | AJSLP | JSLHR | LSHSS |
