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 McKarns, S. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gifford, R. H. Articles by McKarns, S. A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

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

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)

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Simpson Frequency-Lowering Devices for Managing High-Frequency Hearing Loss: A Review Trends in Amplification, June 1, 2009; 13(2): 87 - 106. [Abstract] [PDF]

				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]