Word Recognition following Implantation of Conventional and 10-mm Hybrid Electrodes

Dorman, Michael F.; Gifford, René H.; Lewis, Kristen A.; McKarns, Sharon A.; Ratigan, Jennifer A.; Spahr, Anthony J.; Shallop, Jon K.; Driscoll, Colin L. W.; Luetje, Charles M.; Thedinger, Bradley S.; Beatty, Charles W.; Syms, Mark J.; Novak, Michael D.; Barrs, David M.; Cowdrey, Lisa; Black, Jennifer M.; Loiselle, Louise

doi:10.1159/000171480

Cited by 24 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are different EAS designs that have been implemented by multiple cochlear implant manufacturers (e.g., Cochlear Corporation and MED-EL) over the past ten years, all with the same goal to preserve acoustic hearing in the low-frequencies while providing high-frequency speech and sound perception by electrically stimulating the basal region of the cochlea. Research has shown that speech perception scores using EAS can be similar to those obtained with long-electrode CIs (Gstoettner et al, 2006; Reiss et al, 2008, Dorman et al, 2009). A further advantage of EAS is that by preserving residual low-frequency hearing, frequency resolution is improved as evidenced by improved music perception abilities and better speech perception in background babble compared to electric stimulation alone (Turner et al, 2004; Helbig et al, 2008; Lorens et al, 2008; Dorman and Gifford, 2010; Gfeller et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Effects of Lower Frequency-to-Electrode Allocations on Speech and Pitch Perception with the Hybrid Short-Electrode Cochlear Implant

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because some users of a Hybrid short-electrode cochlear implant (CI) lose their low-frequency residual hearing after receiving the CI, we tested whether increasing the CI speech processor frequency allocation range to include lower frequencies improves speech perception in these individuals. A secondary goal was to see if pitch perception changed after experience with the new CI frequency allocation. Three subjects who had lost all residual hearing in the implanted ear were recruited to use an experimental CI frequency allocation with a lower frequency cutoff than their current clinical frequency allocation. Speech and pitch perception results were collected at multiple time points throughout the study. In general, subjects showed little or no improvement for speech recognition with the experimental allocation when the CI was worn with a hearing aid in the contralateral ear. However, all 3 subjects showed changes in pitch perception that followed the changes in frequency allocations over time, consistent with previous studies showing that pitch perception changes upon provision of a CI.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Effects of Lower Frequency-to-Electrode Allocations on Speech and Pitch Perception with the Hybrid Short-Electrode Cochlear Implant

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on data from the literature [Dorman et al, 2003[Dorman et al, , 2009Fitzgerald et al, 2008], the effectiveness of electric stimulation, specifically the individual's ability to recognize pitch and speech, increased with the number of active intracochlear electrodes and the insertion depth. Other investigations clearly demonstrated the strong impact of the apical region of the cochlea on speech perception [Hochmair et al, 2003;Hamzavi and Arnoldner, 2006].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the functional results of a 6-mm implantation were not sufficient for speech recognition and clearly improved after subjects received a 10-mm insertion [Gantz and Turner, 2003;Turner et al, 2004]. Even a 10-mm implant may have a limited effect on speech understanding compared with a longer electrode [Dorman et al, 2005[Dorman et al, , 2007[Dorman et al, , 2009Fitzgerald et al, 2008] when considering individuals with complete or progressive hearing loss and/ or those with poor acoustic hearing preoperatively [Dorman et al, 2003], so that in case of failure a secondary implantation with a deep insertion is deemed necessary. More recently, a 16-mm implantation depth was advocated as a compromise .…”

Section: Insertion Depthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electric-Acoustic Stimulation of the Auditory System: A Review of the First Decade

Ilberg

Baumann²,

Kiefer³

et al. 2011

Audiol Neurotol

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) was developed for individuals with a profound hearing loss in the high frequencies and a substantial residual low-frequency hearing (LFH). For this group of candidates, conventional hearing aids often neither provided sufficient amplification nor were they considered suitable for cochlear implantation due to the possible destruction of residual hearing capabilities. With EAS, combining electric stimulation with an ipsilateral acoustic stimulation, preservation of residual LFH and the development of a new speech processor uniting both strategies became essential. Over the last years, EAS has developed further and advanced in electrode design and surgery techniques. This paper summarizes the history of EAS and acknowledges the tremendous work of the many research groups who contributed to the success of EAS.

show abstract

“…Shallop et al, 1992; Armstrong et al, 1997; Tyler et al, 2002; Ching et al, 2004; Gantz & Turner, 2004; Gstoettner et al, 2004; Kiefer et al, 2004; Turner et al, 2004; Kong et al, 2005; Gifford et al, 2007; Dorman et al, 2008, 2009; Mok et al, 2006). Here we describe the results from two of our recent studies.…”

Section: What Level Of Performance Can Be Achieved With Eas?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition

Dorman

Gifford

2010

International Journal of Audiology

Self Cite

139

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The majority of recently implanted, cochlear implant patients can potentially benefit from a hearing aid in the ear contralateral to the implant. When patients combine electric and acoustic stimulation, word recognition in quiet and sentence recognition in noise increase significantly. Several studies suggest that the acoustic information that leads to the increased level of performance resides mostly in the frequency region of the voice fundamental, e.g. 125 Hz for a male voice. Recent studies suggest that this information aids speech recognition in noise by improving the recognition of lexical boundaries or word onsets. In some noise environments, patients with bilateral implants can achieve similar levels of performance as patients who combine electric and acoustic stimulation. Patients who have undergone hearing preservation surgery, and who have electric stimulation from a cochlear implant and who have low-frequency hearing in both the implanted and not-implanted ears, achieve the best performance in a high noise environment. KeywordsCochlear implants; Combined acoustic and electric stimulation; Bilateral cochlear implants Until relatively recently, most potential cochlear implant patients were bilaterally deaf in the conventional sense, i.e. they could hear little or nothing from either ear. After receiving a cochlear implant they could hear with one ear-the implanted ear. Today, most patients have some residual hearing in their better, or non-implanted, ear. These patients have the possibility of hearing bilaterally by combining electric stimulation (E) from their implant with acoustic (A) stimulation (S) from the contralateral ear. In this paper we will review our recent work with this population of implant patients and with two other groups of implant patients who receive bilateral stimulation including, (1) those who have been fitted with bilateral cochlear implants, and (2) those who have a single cochlear implant and who have hearing in both the implanted ear and the non-implanted ear. At issue in this article is the performance on tests of speech understanding by unilateral cochlear implant patients and by the three groups of 'two-eared' patients described above. How many patients might benefit from combining acoustic and electric stimulation (EAS)?We have conducted a chart review of 276 adult patients who received a cochlear implant at either the Mayo Clinic, Rochester (n = 100), or at the School of Medicine at the University of Ottawa, Canada, (n = 176). The criterion for review was that the patients had been implanted within the last five years. Our interest was the hearing threshold at 250 Hz in the non-implanted ear. The results, in terms of audiometric threshold at 250 Hz, were binned in 5 dB steps from < 40 dB HL to > 100 dB HL and are shown in Table 1. Relatively few (n = 19) patients had thresholds of better than 40 dB HL. As would be expected, there were more patients with higher thresholds than with lower thresholds. The observation of interest is the cumulative number of patients...

show abstract

Word Recognition following Implantation of Conventional and 10-mm Hybrid Electrodes

Cited by 24 publications

References 37 publications

Effects of Lower Frequency-to-Electrode Allocations on Speech and Pitch Perception with the Hybrid Short-Electrode Cochlear Implant

Effects of Lower Frequency-to-Electrode Allocations on Speech and Pitch Perception with the Hybrid Short-Electrode Cochlear Implant

Electric-Acoustic Stimulation of the Auditory System: A Review of the First Decade

Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About