Variables affecting speech perception in postlingually deaf adults following cochlear implantation

Acta Oto-Laryngologica

Volumn 123, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 493-498

  Hamzavi, Jafar ^a   Baumgartner, Wolf Dieter ^a   Pok, Stefan Marcel ^a   Franz, Peter ^a   Gstoettner, Wolfgang ^b  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cochlear implantation; Postlingual deafness; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; ELECTRODE; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMPLANTATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; DEAFNESS; EQUIPMENT FAILURE; FEMALE; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REOPERATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0038627961     PISSN: 00016489     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0036554021000028120     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Lehnhardt E, Janssen T, Kiessling J. Audiometrie und Cochlear implant. In: Lehnhardt E, Janssen T, Kiessling J, eds. Praxis der Audiometrie, 7th edn. Stuttgart, Germany: Georg Thieme Verlag, 1995: 320-37.
2. O'Donoghue GM, Nikolopoulos TP, Archbold SM. Determinants of speech perception in children after cochlear implantation. Lancet 2000; 356: 466-8.
3. Helms J, Muller J, Schon F, et al. Evaluation of performance with the COMBI40 cochlear implant in adults: a multicentric clinical study. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 1997; 59: 23-35.
4. Gstoettner W, Hamzavi J, Baumgartner W. Speech discrimination scores of postlingually deaf adults implanted with the Combi 40 cochlear implant. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1998; 118: 640-5.
5. Hamzavi J, Baumgartner W, Adunka O, Franz P, Gstoettner W. Audiologic performances with cochlear reimplantation from analog single channel to digital multichannel devices. Audiology 2000; 39: 305-10.
6. Hamzavi J, Baumgartner WD, Pok SM. Does reimplantation affect the speech perception? Int J Audiol 2002; 41: 151-6.
7. Brill SM, Gstottner W, Helms J, et al. Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40 +. Am J Otol 1997; 18: 104-6.
8. Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 110: 1150-63.
9. Shipp DB, Nedzelski JM. Prognostic indicators of speech recognition performance in adult cochlear implant users: a prospective analysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 166: 194-6.
10. Blamey P, Arndt P, Bergeron F, et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol 1996; 1: 293-306.
11. van Dijk JE, van Olphen AF, Mens LH, Brokx JP, van den Broek P, Smoorenburg GF. Predictive factors for success with a cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 166: 196-8.
12. Waltzman SB, Fisher SG, Niparko JK, Cohen NL. Predictors of postoperative performance with cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 165: 15-8.
13. Kiefer J, von Ilberg C, Reimer B, et al. Results of cochlear implantation in patients with severe to profound hearing loss - implications for patient selection. Audiology 1998; 37: 382-95.
14. Totten C, Cope Y, McCormick B. Early experience with the cochlear ESPrit ear-level speech processor in children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2000; 185: 73-5.
15. Helms J, Muller J, Schon F, et al. Comparison of the TEMPO + ear-level speech processor and the cis pro + body-worn processor in adult MED-EL cochlear implant users. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2001; 63: 31-40.