JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.50 1194-1202 October 2007. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/083)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gifford, R. H.
Right arrow Articles by McKarns, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gifford, R. H.
Right arrow Articles by McKarns, S. A.

Effect of Digital Frequency Compression (DFC) on Speech Recognition in Candidates for Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation (EAS)

René H. Gifford
Michael F. Dorman
Anthony J. Spahr
Sharon A. McKarns
Arizona State University, Tempe

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

Purpose: To compare the effects of conventional amplification (CA) and digital frequency compression (DFC) amplification on the speech recognition abilities of candidates for a partial-insertion cochlear implant, that is, candidates for combined electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS).

Method: The participants were 6 patients whose audiometric thresholds at 500 Hz and below were ≤60 dB HL and whose thresholds at 2000 Hz and above were ≥80 dB HL. Six tests of speech understanding were administered with CA and DFC. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was also administered following use of CA and DFC.

Results: Group mean scores were not statistically different in the CA and DFC conditions. However, 2 patients received substantial benefit in DFC conditions. APHAB scores suggested increased ease of communication, but also increased aversive sound quality.

Conclusion: Results suggest that a relatively small proportion of individuals who meet EAS candidacy will receive substantial benefit from a DFC hearing aid and that a larger proportion will receive at least a small benefit when speech is presented against a background of noise. This benefit, however, comes at a cost—aversive sound quality.

KEY WORDS: hearing aids, frequency compression, cochlear implants, amplification, electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS)






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 2007 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.