Audiovisual speech perception in elderly cochlear implant recipients

Laryngoscope

Volumn 115, Issue 10 I, 2005, Pages 1887-1894

  Hay McCutcheon, Marcia J ^a,b   Pisoni, David B ^a,b   Kirk, Karen Iler ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Aging; Cochlear implant; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; AUDIOVISUAL SPEECH PERCEPTION; AUDITORY INFORMATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK TEST; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONSONANT NUCLEUS CONSONANT TEST; FUNCTION TEST; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HEARING IN NOISE SENTENCE TEST; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LIP READING; PERFORMANCE; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VISUAL INFORMATION;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, OTOLOGICAL; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 26944484357     PISSN: 0023852X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000173197.94769.ba     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Djalilian HR, King TA, Smith SL, Levine SC. Cochlearim-plantation in the elderly: Results and quality-of-life assessment. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002;111:890-895.
2. Chatelin V, Kim EJ, Driscoll C, et al. Cochlear implant outcomes in the elderly. Otol Neurotol 2004; 25: 298-301.
3. Shin YJ, Fraysse B, Deguine O, et al. Benefits of cochlear implantation in elderly patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;122:602-606.
4. Pasanisi E, Bacciu A, Vincenti V, et al. Speech recognition in elderly cochlear implant recipients. Clin Otolaryngol 2003; 28:154-157.
5. Cruickshanks KJ, Tweed TS, Wiley TL, et al. The 5-year incidence and progression of hearing loss. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:1041-1046.
6. Sommers M, Tye-Murray N, Spehar B. Auditory-visual speech perception and auditory-visual enhancement in normal-hearing younger and older adults. Eur Hear 2005; 26: 263-274.
7. Spehar B, Tye-Murray N, Sommers M. Time-compressed visual speech and age: a first report. Eur Hear 2004;25: 565-572.
8. Sumby WH, Pollack I. Visual contributions to speech intelligibility in noise. Acoust Soc Am 1954;26:212-215.
9. Battmer RD, Gupta SP, Allum-Mcklenburg DJ, Lenarz T. Factors influencing cochlear implant perceptual performance in 132 adults. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995;166 Suppl: 185-187.
10. Gantz BJ, Tyler RS, Knutson JF, et al. Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: audiologic assessment and predictors of performance. Laryngoscope 1988;98: 1100-1106.
11. Gantz BJ, Woodworth GG, Knutson JF, et al. Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1993;102: 909-916.
12. van Dijk JE, van Olphen AF, Langereis MC, et al. Predictors of cochlear implant performance. Audiology 1999;38: 109-116.
13. NIH Consensus Development Panel. Cochlear implants in adults and children. JAMA 1995;274:1955-1961.
14. UK Cochlear Implant Study Group. Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults. III. Prospective evaluation of an actuarial approach to defining a criterion. Eur Hear 2004;25:361-374.
15. Zeng FG. Trends in cochlear implants. Trends Amplification 2004;8:1-34.
16. Middelweerd MJ, Plomp R. The effect of speechreading on the speech-reception threshold of sentences in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1987;82:2145-2147.
17. Lyxell B, Ronnberg J. Word discrimination and chronological age related to sentence-based speech-reading skill. Br J Audiol 1991;25:3-10.