The benefits of bimodal hearing: effect of frequency region and acoustic bandwidth.

Audiol Neurootol

Cochlear Implant Research Laboratory, Vanderbilt Bill Wilkerson Center, Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., USA.

Published: March 2015

We examined the effects of acoustic bandwidth on bimodal benefit for speech recognition in adults with a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and low-frequency acoustic hearing in the contralateral ear. The primary aims were to (1) replicate Zhang et al. [Ear Hear 2010;31:63-69] with a steeper filter roll-off to examine the low-pass bandwidth required to obtain bimodal benefit for speech recognition and expand results to include different signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and talker genders, (2) determine whether the bimodal benefit increased with acoustic low-pass bandwidth and (3) determine whether an equivalent bimodal benefit was obtained with acoustic signals of similar low-pass and pass band bandwidth, but different center frequencies. Speech recognition was assessed using words presented in quiet and sentences in noise (+10, +5 and 0 dB SNRs). Acoustic stimuli presented to the nonimplanted ear were filtered into the following bands: <125, 125-250, <250, 250-500, <500, 250-750, <750 Hz and wide-band (full, nonfiltered bandwidth). The primary findings were: (1) the minimum acoustic low-pass bandwidth that produced a significant bimodal benefit was <250 Hz for male talkers in quiet and for female talkers in multitalker babble, but <125 Hz for male talkers in background noise, and the observed bimodal benefit did not vary significantly with SNR; (2) the bimodal benefit increased systematically with acoustic low-pass bandwidth up to <750 Hz for a male talker in quiet and female talkers in noise and up to <500 Hz for male talkers in noise, and (3) a similar bimodal benefit was obtained with low-pass and band-pass-filtered stimuli with different center frequencies (e.g. <250 vs. 250-500 Hz), meaning multiple frequency regions contain useful cues for bimodal benefit. Clinical implications are that (1) all aidable frequencies should be amplified in individuals with bimodal hearing, and (2) verification of audibility at 125 Hz is unnecessary unless it is the only aidable frequency.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4104148PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000357588DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bimodal benefit
16
speech recognition
12
acoustic bandwidth
8
benefit speech
8
low-pass bandwidth
8
acoustic
6
bandwidth
5
benefits bimodal
4
bimodal hearing
4
hearing frequency
4

Similar Publications

Purpose: To study the treatment and outcomes of children with retinoblastoma (RB) with extraocular tumor extension (RB-EOE) and compare them with RB without extraocular tumor extension (RB-w/o-EOE).

Design: Multicenter intercontinental collaborative prospective study from 2017 to 2020. RB-EOE cases included those with overt orbital tumor extension in treatment-naive patients.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Cochlear implants (CIs) have the potential to facilitate auditory restoration in deaf children and contribute to the maturation of the auditory cortex. The type of CI may impact hearing rehabilitation in children with CI. We aimed to study central auditory processing activation patterns during speech perception in Mandarin-speaking pediatric CI recipients with different device characteristics.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Purpose: Individualized cochlear implantation (CI) is essential to facilitate optimal hearing results for patients. Influence of cochlear coverage (CC) has been studied, however without consideration of different CI-categories, like single sided deafness (SSD), bimodal, and bilateral separately.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of preoperative CT scans was performed at a tertiary center.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Purpose: To compare the listening effort using objective test (dual-task paradigm), parents report using abbreviated version of the Speech, Spatial and Quality questionnaire (SSQ-P10) and Teachers' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children and Ease of Listening (TEACH), working memory and attention span between children using cochlear implants (CI) and age-matched peers with normal hearing sensitivity, and assess the relationship between listening effort and real-life benefit in children using CI.

Method: Group I included 25 children with normal hearing sensitivity. Group II included 25 children with bimodal cochlear implantation with bilateral severe to profound hearing loss.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background:  Despite significant advances in the field of cochlear implants (CIs), there is no widely accepted criterion for when to counsel on bilateral CIs in adults. This is partly due to conflicting findings on the advantages of bilateral CIs versus bimodal hearing (i.e.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!