BKB-SIN and ANL predict perceived communication ability in cochlear implant users

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 401-410

  Donaldson, Gail S ^a,b   Chisolm, Theresa H ^a   Blasco, Georgina P ^a   Shinnick, Leslie J ^a   Ketter, Katie J ^a   Krause, Jean C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b PCD1017 ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCEPTABLE NOISE LEVEL; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BAMFORD KOWAL BENCH SENTENCES IN NOISE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMMUNICATION DISORDER; COMMUNICATION SKILL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NOISE; PERCEPTION; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF CONCEPT; SELF REPORT; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ATTENTION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COMMUNICATION; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS, BILATERAL; HUMANS; MALE; MOTIVATION; NOISE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 69049112855     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181a16379     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Bench, J., Kowal, A., Bamford, J. (1979). The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentences lists for partially-hearing children. Br J Audiol, 13, 108-112. (Pubitemid 10224351)
2. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Statist Soc Ser B, 57, 289-300.
3. Beynon, A., Snik, A., Van den Broek, P. (2003). Comparison of different speech coding strategies using a disability-based inventory and speech perception tests in quiet and in noise. Otol Neurotol, 24, 392-396. (Pubitemid 36618160)
4. Chisolm, T. H., & Abrams, H. (2008). Outcome measures and evidence based practice. In M. Valente, H. Hosford-Dunn, R. J. Roeser (Eds.). Audiology Practice Management (2nd ed., Ch. 8, pp. 155-188). New York: Thieme Publications.
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Cosmos Distributing, Inc. (1984). "Quality Recordings for the Hearing Health Care Industry. Acceptable Noise Level (ANL) Test." [CD]. Kelowna, BC: Cosmos Distributing, Inc.
7. Cox, R. M., & Alexander, G. (1995). The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear, 16, 176-186.
8. Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. C., Gray, G. A. (2003). Audiometric correlates of the unaided APHAB. J Am Acad Audiol, 14, 361-371.
9. Cox, R. M., Gray, G. A., Alexander, G. C. (2001). Evaluation of a revised speech in noise (RSIN) test. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 423-433.
10. Crowley, H. J., & Nabelek, I. (1996). Estimation of client-assessed hearing aid performance based upon unaided variables. J Speech Hear Res, 39, 19-27. (Pubitemid 26179109)
11. DiFrancesca, S. (1972). Academic Achievement Test Results of a National Testing Program for Hearing-Impaired Students-U.S., Spring (Series D, No. 9). Washington, DC: Gallaudet College, Office of Demographics Studies.
12. Etymōtic Research. (2005). BKB-SIN™ speech in noise test version 1.03 (compact disc). Elk Grove Village, IL: Etymōtic Research.
13. Franklin, C. A., Thelin, J. W., Nabelek, A. K., et al. (2006). The effects of speech presentation level on acceptance of background noise in listeners with normal hearing. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 141-146. (Pubitemid 351324932)
14. Freyaldenhoven, M. C., Nabelek, A. K., Tampas, J. W. (2008). Relationship between acceptable noise level and the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 51, 136-146.
15. Gallaudet Research Institute. (1996). Stanford Achievement Test, Form S, Norms Booklet for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students (Including Conversions of Raw Score to Scaled Score & Grade Equivalent and Age-based Percentile Ranks for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students) (9th ed.). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.
16. Gifford, R. H., Shallop, J. K., Peterson, A. M. (2008). Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: Considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol Neurotol, 13, 193-205.
17. Harkrider, A. W., & Smith, S. B. (2005). Acceptable noise level, phoneme recognition in noise, and measures of auditory efferent activity. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 530-545.
18. Harkrider, A. W., & Tampas, J. W. (2006). Differences in responses from the cochleae and central nervous systems of females with low versus high acceptable noise levels. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 667-676.
19. Holden, L. K., Skinner, M. W., Fourakis, M. S., et al. (2007). Effect of increased IIDR in the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant system. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 777-793.
20. Joore, M. A., Potjewijd, J., Timmerman, A. A., et al. (2002). Response shift in the measurement of quality of life in hearing impaired adults after hearing aid fitting. Qual Life Res, 11, 299-307. (Pubitemid 34596852)
21. Koch, D., Osberger, J., Segel, P., et al. (2004). Hi Resolution and conventional sound processing in the Hi Resolution bionic ear: Using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability. Audiol Neurootol, 9, 214-223. (Pubitemid 38812969)
22. Litovsky, R., Parkinson, A., Arcaroli, J., et al. (2006). Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: A multicenter clinical study. Ear Hear, 27, 714-731. (Pubitemid 44691232)
23. McArdle, R. A., Wilson, R. H., Burks, C. A. (2005). Speech recognition in multitalker babble using digits, words, and sentences. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 726-739. (Pubitemid 43375774)
24. Mendel, L. (2007). Objective and subjective hearing aid assessment outcomes. Am J Audiol, 16, 118-129.
25. Mueller, H. G., Weber, J., Hornsby, B. W. (2006). The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif, 10, 1-9. (Pubitemid 44257136)
26. Nabalek, A. K. (2005). Acceptance of background noise may be key to successful fittings. Hear J, 58, 10-15.
27. Nabelek, A. K., Freyaldenhoven, M. C., Tampas, J., et al. (2006). Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing aid use. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 635-649. (Pubitemid 44596743)
28. Nabelek, A. K., Tampas, J. W., Burchfield, S. B. (2004). Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background noise in aided and unaided conditions. J Speech Hear Res, 45, 1001-1011.
29. Nabelek, A. K., Tucker, F. M., Letowski, T. R. (1991). Toleration of background noises: Relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res, 34, 679-685.
30. Plyler, P. N., Bahng, J., Von Hapsburg, D. (2008). The acceptance of background noise in adult cochlear implant users. J Speech Hear Res, 51, 502-515. (Pubitemid 351838311)
31. Rogers, D. S., Harkrider, A. W., Burchfield, S. B., et al. (2003). The influence of listener's gender on the acceptance of background noise. J Am Acad Audiol, 14, 372-382.
32. Skinner, M. W., Clark, G. M., Whitford, L. A., et al. (1994). Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 channel cochlear implant system. Am J Otol, 15 (Suppl 2), 15-27.
33. Spahr, A. J., & Dorman, M. F. (2004). Performance of subjects fit with the advanced bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 130, 624-628.
34. Tampas, J. W., & Harkrider, A. W. (2006). Auditory evoked potentials in females with high and low acceptance of background noise when listening to speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 1548-1561.
35. Walden, B. E., Demorest, M., Helper, E. (1984). Self report approach to assessing benefit derived from amplification. J Speech Hear Res, 27, 49-54. (Pubitemid 14135539)
36. Wilson, R. M., McArdle, R. A., Smith, S. L. (2007). An evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN and WIN materials on listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res, 50, 844-856.