Benefit from bimodal hearing in a group of prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users

Berrettini, Stefano; Passetti, Susanna; Giannarelli, Michela; Forlì, Francesca

doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2009.04.002

Cited by 26 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We first compared two versions that included speech stimulithe full version and the a cappella version-to assess whether piano accompaniment (in the full version) would act as noise and thereby detract from the CI users' identification of the songs, as found for speech understanding in quiet versus noise (Berrettini, Passetti, Giannarelli, & Forli, 2010). This comparison may add to knowledge about the different abilities of each group to correctly identify songs, depending on the type of acoustic information provided.…”

Section: Comparisons Among Versions For Participants With Hearing Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

Song Recognition by Young Children With Cochlear Implants: Comparison Between Unilateral, Bilateral, and Bimodal Users

Bartov

Most

2014

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Comparisons Among Versions For Participants With Hearing Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

Song Recognition by Young Children With Cochlear Implants: Comparison Between Unilateral, Bilateral, and Bimodal Users

Bartov

Most

2014

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The majority of studies with bimodally-fitted adults show that there is improvement in speech recognition, localization, and subjective reports with bimodal stimulation compared with monaural CI use (Berrettini, Passetti, Giannarelli, & Forli, 2010; Ching, Incerti, & Hill, 2004; Dunn, Tyler, & Witt, 2005; Firszt, Reeder, & Skinner, 2008; Fitzpatrick, Seguin, Schramm, Chenier, & Armstrong, 2009; Morera et al, 2005; Potts, Skinner, Litovsky, Strube, & Kuk, 2009; Seeber, Baumann, & Fastl, 2004; Tyler et al, 2002). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transitioning From Bimodal to Bilateral Cochlear Implant Listening: Speech Recognition and Localization in Four Individuals

Potts

Litovsky

2014

Am J Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The use of bilateral stimulation is becoming common for cochlear implant (CI) recipients, with either a CI in one ear and a hearing aid (HA) in the non-implanted ear (CI&HA - bimodal) or CIs in both ears (CI&CI - bilateral). The objective of this study was to evaluate performance of four individuals who transitioned from bimodal to bilateral stimulation. Methods Participants had completed a larger study of bimodal hearing and subsequently received a second CI. Test procedures from the bimodal study, including speech recognition, localization, and a questionnaire (SSQ) were repeated after 6-7 months of experience with bilateral CIs. Speech recognition and localization were measured using words that were presented from unpredictable locations in the room. Results Speech recognition and localization were not different between bimodal and unilateral CI. In contrast, performance was significantly better with CI&CI compared with unilateral CI. Speech recognition with CI&CI was significantly better than with CI&HA for 2/4 participants. Localization was significantly better for all participants with CI&CI compared to CI&HA. CI&CI performance was rated as significantly better on the SSQ compared to CI&HA performance for the four participants. Conclusions There was a strong subjective preference for CI&CI for all participants. The variability in speech recognition and localization, however, suggests that performance under these stimulus conditions is individualized. Differences in hearing and/or HA history may provide an explanation for performance differences.

show abstract

“…There are few studies examining the influence of hearing thresholds on bimodal hearing benefit in adult population. It was suggested that if residual hearing was greater in the non-implanted aided ear, bimodal benefit would be greater also, which is expected (Tyler et al, 2002;Yoon, Li & Fu, 2012) Some authors (Berrettini et al, 2010) found significant correlation between unaided 1000 to 4000 Hz threshold and speech perception in bimodal stimulation in pre-lingually deaf adults . On the other hand, there are studies that found no significant correlation between unaided thresholds in the non-implanted ear and bimodal benefit (Luntz et al, 2005;Luntz et al, 2007).…”

Section: Thresholds In the Non-implanted Earmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of hearing aid use on auditory perception and verbal short-term memory in children with bimodal stimulation

Ostojić¹,

Jotić²,

Nikolić³

et al. 2015

Spec eduk i rehabilitacija

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benefit from bimodal hearing in a group of prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users

Cited by 26 publications

References 28 publications

Song Recognition by Young Children With Cochlear Implants: Comparison Between Unilateral, Bilateral, and Bimodal Users

Song Recognition by Young Children With Cochlear Implants: Comparison Between Unilateral, Bilateral, and Bimodal Users

Transitioning From Bimodal to Bilateral Cochlear Implant Listening: Speech Recognition and Localization in Four Individuals

Impact of hearing aid use on auditory perception and verbal short-term memory in children with bimodal stimulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About