HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gifford, R. H. Articles by Spahr, A. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gifford, R. H. Articles by Spahr, A. J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

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

Contact author: René H. Gifford, who is now at the Mayo Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, 200 First Street Southwest, Eisenberg 2F, Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail: gifford.rene{at}mayo.edu.

Purpose: The authors assessed whether (a) a full-insertion cochlear implant would provide a higher level of speech understanding than bilateral low-frequency acoustic hearing, (b) contralateral acoustic hearing would add to the speech understanding provided by the implant, and (c) the level of performance achieved with electric stimulation plus contralateral acoustic hearing would be similar to performance reported in the literature for patients with a partial insertion cochlear implant.

Method: Monosyllabic word recognition as well as sentence recognition in quiet and at +10 and +5 dB was assessed. Before implantation, scores were obtained in monaural and binaural conditions. Following implantation, scores were obtained in electric-only and electric-plus-contralateral acoustic conditions.

Results: Postoperatively, all individuals achieved higher scores in the electric-only test conditions than they did in the best pre-implant test conditions. All individuals benefited from the addition of low-frequency information to the electric hearing.

Conclusion: A full-insertion cochlear implant provides better speech understanding than bilateral, low-frequency residual hearing. The combination of an implant and contralateral acoustic hearing yields comparable performance to that of patients with a partially inserted implant and bilateral, low-frequency acoustic hearing. These data suggest that a full-insertion cochlear implant is a viable treatment option for patients with low-frequency residual hearing.

KEY WORDS: cochlear implants, hearing aids, electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS), bimodal hearing, speech perception in noise

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. M. Uchanski, L. S. Davidson, S. Quadrizius, R. Reeder, J. Cadieux, J. Kettel, and R. A. Chole Two Ears and Two (or More?) Devices: A Pediatric Case Study of Bilateral Profound Hearing Loss Trends in Amplification, June 1, 2009; 13(2): 107 - 123. [Abstract] [PDF]