Cochlear Implant-Mediated Perception of Nonlinguistic Sounds

Inverso, Yell; Limb, Charles J.

doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e3181d99a52

Cited by 38 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As in previous studies (Inverso & Limb, 2010;Shafiro et al, 2011), there was large variability in performance among individual sound sources. Identification accuracy of 20 of the 40 sound sources in the test was below 50% correct during Pretest 1 (see Table 2).…”

Section: Variability Among Soundsmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…Similarly to Inverso and Limb (2010), Shafiro et al used a large (i.e., 60 item) closed-set response format, which might have contributed to lower identification accuracy than previously found by Reed and Delhorne (2005), who used a 10-item closed-set format.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

“…It thus appears that training listeners with a broad range of environmental sounds which vary considerably in terms of their sound sources may positively influence listeners' ability to perceive smaller, more constrained sound classes, such as speech, as a subclass of environmental sounds. Indeed, moderate-tostrong correlations in the ability to perceive speech and environmental sounds have been frequently found for both CI patients and NH listeners responding to vocoded stimuli (Inverso & Limb, 2010;Shafiro et al, 2011;Shafiro et al, 2012;Tyler et al, 1989).…”

Section: Environmental Sound Training With CI Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Vitally important to the patient's well-being (e.g., fire alarms, car horns) or simply aesthetically pleasing (e.g., chirping birds, ocean surf ), environmental sounds transmit valuable information about objects and events taking place around the listener (Gaver, 1993) and can contribute to the patient's overall well-being (Ramsdell, 1978). On the other hand, recent findings indicate considerable deficits in the ability of patients with cochlear implants (CIs) to identify many common environmental sounds, even after years of implant use (Inverso & Limb, 2010;Looi & Arnephy, 2010;Reed & Delhorne, 2005;Shafiro, Gygi, Cheng, Vachhani, & Mulvey, 2011). As a possible remedy to this problem, previous studies with CI simulations in normal-hearing listeners demonstrate that environmental sound perception can improve after a period of formal training (Loebach & Pisoni, 2008;Shafiro, 2008;Shafiro, Sheft, Gygi, & Ho, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The purpose of the present study was to determine if similar sound-specific training and generalization effects can be found in experienced adult CI patients. many common environmental sounds (Inverso & Limb, 2010;Looi & Arnephy, 2010;Reed & Delhorne, 2005;Shafiro et al, 2011;Tyler, Moore, & Kuk, 1989).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Environmental Sound Training in Cochlear Implant Users

Shafiro

Sheft

Kuvadia

et al. 2015

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The study investigated the effect of a short computer-based environmental sound training regimen on the perception of environmental sounds and speech in experienced cochlear implant (CI) patients. Method Fourteen CI patients with the average of 5 years of CI experience participated. The protocol consisted of 2 pretests, 1 week apart, followed by 4 environmental sound training sessions conducted on separate days in 1 week, and concluded with 2 posttest sessions, separated by another week without training. Each testing session included an environmental sound test, which consisted of 40 familiar everyday sounds, each represented by 4 different tokens, as well as the Consonant Nucleus Consonant (CNC) word test, and Revised Speech Perception in Noise (SPIN-R) sentence test. Results Environmental sounds scores were lower than for either of the speech tests. Following training, there was a significant average improvement of 15.8 points in environmental sound perception, which persisted 1 week later after training was discontinued. No significant improvements were observed for either speech test. Conclusions The findings demonstrate that environmental sound perception, which remains problematic even for experienced CI patients, can be improved with a home-based computer training regimen. Such computer-based training may thus provide an effective low-cost approach to rehabilitation for CI users, and potentially, other hearing impaired populations.

show abstract

Section: Variability Among Soundsmentioning

confidence: 61%

mentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Environmental Sound Training With CI Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Environmental Sound Training in Cochlear Implant Users

Shafiro

Sheft

Kuvadia

et al. 2015

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Safety‐relevant environmental sound identification in cochlear implant candidates and users

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis: To compare the identification of safety-relevant environmental sounds between experienced cochlear implant (CI) users and CI candidates.Study Design: Cross-sectional.Methods: A sample of 19 adult, postlingually deaf CI candidates (CI-Cs), 47 experienced CI users (CI-Es), and a control group of 37 age-matched normal-hearing adults were assessed using the Familiar Environmental Sounds Test-Identification (FEST-I). A subset of 11 sounds relevant for safety were selected for analysis in the current study.Results: Analysis of safety-relevant sound identification accuracy revealed no significant difference in safety-relevant environmental sound identification skills between CI-E and CI-C participants, with average scores of 68.1% and 67.9%, respectively. Both performed substantially lower than age-matched normal hearing adults (95.1%). A significant moderate negative correlation (-0.4) was found between safety-relevant sound accuracy and chronological age only in one group, the CI-E group (r = -0.4, P < .005).Conclusions: These findings fail to demonstrate superior performance in safety-relevant environmental sound identification among CI-Es compared with CI-Cs. Although preliminary, these findings suggest that identification of safety-relevant sounds is a significant area of weakness for both CI-Es and CI-Cs, both of whom may benefit from rehabilitation.

show abstract

Identification Accuracy of Safety‐Relevant Environmental Sounds in Adult Cochlear Implant Users

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveExamine cochlear implant (CI) users' ability to identify safety‐relevant environmental sounds, imperative for safety, independence, and personal well‐being.MethodsTwenty‐one experienced adult CI users completed an Environmental Sound Identification (ESI) test consisting of 42 common environmental sounds, 28 of which were relevant to personal safety, along with 14 control sounds. Prior to sound identification, participants were shown sound names and asked to rate the familiarity and, separately, relevance to safety of each corresponding sound on a 1–5 scale.ResultsOverall ESI accuracy was 57% correct for the safety‐relevant sounds and 55% correct for control sounds. Participants rated safety‐relevant sounds as more important to safety and more familiar than the non‐safety sounds. ESI accuracy significantly correlated with familiarity ratings.ConclusionThe present findings suggest mediocre ESI accuracy in postlingual adult CI users for safety‐relevant and other environmental sounds. Deficits in the identification of these sounds may put CI listeners at increased risk of accidents or injuries and may require a specific rehabilitation program to improve CI outcomes.Level of Evidence4 Laryngoscope, 133:2388–2393, 2023

show abstract

Cochlear Implant-Mediated Perception of Nonlinguistic Sounds

Cited by 38 publications

References 28 publications

Environmental Sound Training in Cochlear Implant Users

Environmental Sound Training in Cochlear Implant Users

Safety‐relevant environmental sound identification in cochlear implant candidates and users

Identification Accuracy of Safety‐Relevant Environmental Sounds in Adult Cochlear Implant Users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About