+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Influence of Test Condition on Speech Perception With Electric-Acoustic Stimulation

Influence of Test Condition on Speech Perception With Electric-Acoustic Stimulation

American Journal of Audiology 24(4): 520-528

The goal of this work was to better understand speech perception for cochlear implant (CI) users with bilateral residual hearing, including consideration of effects related to listening conditions and test measures. Of interest was the role of acoustic hearing for speech perception in a complex background, the role of listening experience for CI-alone conditions, and whether performance with electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) was improved by a contralateral hearing aid (HA). Eleven subjects provided data on Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC; Peterson & Lehiste, 1962) words in quiet, City University of New York (CUNY; Boothroyd, Hanin, & Hnath, 1985) sentences in steady noise, and Bamford-Kowal-Bench (Bench, Kowal, & Bamford, 1979) sentences in multitalker babble. Listening conditions included: CI with a full-frequency map, CI with a truncated-frequency map, EAS, and EAS+HA (EAS plus contralateral HA). Sounds were presented at 0° azimuth. For CNC words and CUNY sentences, performance was better with the truncated-frequency than the full-frequency map, and performance with EAS was better than for either CI-alone condition. For Bench-Kowal-Bamford sentences, EAS+HA was better than EAS. As demonstrated previously, performance was better in the EAS condition than either CI-alone condition. Better performance in the truncated-frequency than full-frequency CI-alone condition suggests that listening experience may be important. A contralateral HA improved performance over unilateral EAS under some conditions.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 058110503

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26650652

DOI: 10.1044/2015_aja-15-0022

Related references

The influence of different speech processor and hearing aid settings on speech perception outcomes in electric acoustic stimulation patients. Ear and Hearing 29(1): 76-86, 2008

Frequency overlap between electric and acoustic stimulation and speech-perception benefit in patients with combined electric and acoustic stimulation. Ear and Hearing 31(2): 195-201, 2010

Mandarin speech perception in combined electric and acoustic stimulation. Plos one 9(11): E112471, 2014

Electric-acoustic stimulation in adults: localization and speech perception. Cochlear Implants International 15(Suppl. 1): S17-S20, 2014

The perception of telephone-processed speech by combined electric and acoustic stimulation. Trends in Amplification 17(3): 189-196, 2014

Electric-Acoustic Stimulation After Reimplantation: Hearing Preservation and Speech Perception. Otology and Neurotology 40(2): E94-E98, 2019

Interaction between electric and acoustic cues in diotic condition for speech perception in quiet and noise by cochlear implantees. Otology and Neurotology 33(1): 30-37, 2012

Is electric acoustic stimulation better than conventional cochlear implantation for speech perception in quiet?. Otology and Neurotology 31(7): 1049-1054, 2010

Speech Perception With Combined Electric-Acoustic Stimulation: A Simulation and Model Comparison. Ear and Hearing 36(6): E314-E325, 2016

The advantages of sound localization and speech perception of bilateral electric acoustic stimulation. Acta Oto-Laryngologica 135(2): 147-153, 2015

Hearing preservation and speech perception outcomes with electric-acoustic stimulation after 12 months of listening experience. Laryngoscope 123(10): 2509-2515, 2013

Speech perception with electric-acoustic stimulation : Comparison with bilateral cochlear implant users in different noise conditions. Hno 63(2): 85-93, 2015

Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field. Ear and Hearing 34(3): 324-332, 2013

A filtered speech test to better evaluate electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) candidacy. Cochlear Implants International 11(Suppl. 1): 130-133, 2010

A Filtered Speech Test to Better Evaluate Electric Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) Candidacy. Cochlear Implants International 11(Suppl.-1): 130-133, 2010