2011
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-9434-9_2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bilateral Cochlear Implants

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
8
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 148 publications
3
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Averaged across the 32 listeners who showed no floor effects, the diotic S 0 N 0 benefit was 0 dB and the binaural benefit in spatially separated conditions was about 1 dB, when referred to the better monaural result in each condition. Those results are in good agreement with a recent review of the bilateral CI literature (van Hoesel, 2011) in which binaural benefits were recalculated relative to better ear outcomes for a large number of studies. On average, the binaural SRT benefit in that review was found to be slightly smaller than 1 dB for S 0 N 0 presentation, and slightly greater than 1 dB for spatially separated speech and noise.…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Averaged across the 32 listeners who showed no floor effects, the diotic S 0 N 0 benefit was 0 dB and the binaural benefit in spatially separated conditions was about 1 dB, when referred to the better monaural result in each condition. Those results are in good agreement with a recent review of the bilateral CI literature (van Hoesel, 2011) in which binaural benefits were recalculated relative to better ear outcomes for a large number of studies. On average, the binaural SRT benefit in that review was found to be slightly smaller than 1 dB for S 0 N 0 presentation, and slightly greater than 1 dB for spatially separated speech and noise.…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Some of that variability arises from the use of different monaural reference conditions (e.g., the better ear, first implanted ear, or average of the two sides). When a fixed ear is used as the monaural reference condition (such as the first implanted ear) or if results are averaged across ears or listeners before calculating the benefit, some of the assumed "binaural benefit" may actually be due to attending an added ear with better performance (van Hoesel, 2011) so that the true binaural benefit will be overestimated. A conservative estimate of the binaural benefit that must be attributed to the use of both ears is obtained a) Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SRM obtained with our CI participants at the typical H 0 M 90 configuration (3-4 dB) falls within the range covered by previous reports and reviewed , although BCI users' SRM is on the low end. The headshadow effect measured from our UCI users (6 dB) also falls in the range covered by previous reports and reviewed by Van Hoesel (2011) and is a very good match to that measured by Culling et al (2012). Summation and squelch results are compared with the results from Litovsky et al (2006) in the bilateral-CI-users section below.…”
Section: A Speech-facing Srm and Hobsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…Additional measures of summation (2.9 dB at H 0 M 0 ) and squelch (2.0 dB at H 0 M 90 and 2.6 dB at H 30 M 180 ) from BCI users were found to be significantly larger than previously reported in the literature. These correspond to the "diotic" and "binaural" benefits reviewed by Van Hoesel (2011). Compared to summation outcomes reported in the Litovsky et al (2006) multi-center study (the effect they call binaural redundancy), our mean summation seems larger than their 1.5 dB, but their range, À6 to þ9 dB, was comparable to ours, À3.5 to þ6.5 dB.…”
Section: Bilateral CI Userssupporting
confidence: 66%
“…This last factor points to a well-known characteristic of BiCIs: The lack of binaural coordination between the CI speech processors in the two ears, which likely causes binaural cues to be weak, absent or inconsistent (van Hoesel, 2011;Litovsky, 2011a,b). BiCI users are essentially fit with two monaural systems, which are not coordinated regarding their sampling time or onset time, thus the chances that binaural cues are preserved with fidelity is minimal (van Hoesel, 2011).…”
Section: B Srmmentioning
confidence: 97%