The effect of instantaneous input dynamic range setting on the speech perception of children with the nucleus 24 implant

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 340-349

  Davidson, Lisa S ^a   Skinner, Margaret W ^a   Holstad, Beth A ^b   Fears, Beverly T ^c   Richter, Marie K ^d   Matusofsky, Margaret ^d   Brenner, Christine ^b   Holden, Timothy ^a   Birath, Amy ^b   Kettel, Jerrica L ^d   Scollie, Susan ^e  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Moog Center for Deaf Education   (United States)

^c St Joseph Institute for the Deaf   (United States)

^d CENTRAL INSTITUTE FOR THE DEAF   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; AUDIOMETRY; BAMFORD KOWAL BENCH SPEECH IN NOISE TEST; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONSONANT NUCLEUS CONSONANT; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMPLANT; INSTANTANEOUS INPUT DYNAMIC RANGE; LOUDNESS; MALE; NOISE; PRESCHOOL CHILD; SCHOOL CHILD; SCORING SYSTEM; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SOUND; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY INDICES; SPEECH PERCEPTION; WORD RECOGNITION;

ADOLESCENT; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CALIBRATION; CHILD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; NOISE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHONETICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 69049115109     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31819ec93a     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. American National Standards Institute (1996). American National Standard Specifications for Audiometers, ANSI S3.6-1996. New York: ANSI.
2. American National Standards Institute (1997). Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index. ANSI S-3.5. In Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. ANSI S-3.5. New York, NY: Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Society of America.
3. Amlani, A. M., Punch, J. L., Ching, T. Y. C. (2002). Methods and applications of the audibility index in hearing aid selection and fitting. Trends Amplif, 6, 81-129.
4. Anderson, K. L., & Smaldino, J. J. (2000). CHILD: Children's Home Inventory for Listening Difficulties. Tampa: Education Audiology Association.
5. Bess, F., Dodd-Murphy, J., Parker, R. (1998). Children with minimal sensorineural hearing loss: Prevalence, educational performance, and functional status. Ear Hear, 19, 339-354. (Pubitemid 28465218)
6. Carhart, R., & Jerger, J. (1959). Preferred method for clinical determination of pure tone thresholds. J Speech Hear Disord, 24, 330-345.
7. Cosendai, G., & Pelizzone, M. (2001). Effects of acoustical dynamic range on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Audiology, 40, 272-281. (Pubitemid 33026146)
8. Dawson, P. W., Decker, J. A., Psarros, C. E. (2004). Optimizing dynamic range in children using the nucleus cochlear implant. Ear Hear, 25, 230-241.
9. Dawson, P. W., Vandali, A. E., Knight, M. R., et al. (2007). Clinical evaluation of expanded input dynamic range in nucleus cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 28, 163-176.
10. Donaldson, G. S., & Allen, S. L. (2003). Effects of presentation level on phonemes and sentence recognition in quiet by cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear, 24, 392-405.
11. Elliot, L. L. (1979). Performance of children aged 9-17 years on a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence material with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am, 66, 651-653.
12. Firszt, J. B., Holden, L. K., Skinner, M. W., et al. (2004). Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems. Ear Hear, 25, 375-387.
13. Flexer, C. A. (1999). The importance of hearing and the impact of hearing problems. In Facilitating Hearing and Listening in Young Children (2nd ed., pp., 1-22). San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.
14. French, N. R., & Steinberg, J. C. (1947). Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am, 19, 90-119.
15. 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.
16. Holstad, B., Sonneveldt, V. G., Fears, B. T., et al. (2009). Relation of electrically evoked compound action potentials measured using neural response telemetry to cochlear implant program T- and C-levels in children. Ear Hear, 30, 115-127.
17. Humes, L. E., Dirks, D. D., Bell, T. S., et al. (1986). Application of the articulation index to the recognition of speech by normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners. J Speech Hear Res, 29, 447-462.
18. James, C. J., Blamey, P. J., Martin, L., et al. (2002). Adaptive dynamic range optimization for cochlear implants: a preliminary study. Ear Hear, 23:49S-58S. (Pubitemid 34195174)
19. James, C. J., Skinner, M. W., Martin, L. F. A., et al. (2003). An investigation of input level range for the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings. Ear Hear, 24, 157-174.
20. Killion, M. C., Niquette, P. A., Gudmundsen, G. I., et al. (2004). Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 395-405.
21. Ling, D. (1976). Speech and the Hearing-Impaired Child: Theory and Practice. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.
22. Ling, D. (1988). Foundations of Spoken Language for the Hearing-Impaired. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.
23. Mueller, H. G., & Killion, M. C. (1990). An easy method for calculating the articulation index. Hear J, 49, 1-4.
24. Nabelek, A. K., & Robinson, P. K. (1982). Monaural and binaural speech perception in reverberation for listeners of various ages. J Acoust Soc Am, 71, 1242-1248.
25. Nilsson, M., Soli, S., Sullivan, J. A. (1994). Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 1085-1099. (Pubitemid 24056373)
26. Pavlovic, C. V. (1986). Articulation index predictions of speech intelligibility in hearing aid selection. ASHA, 30, 63-65.
27. Pavlovic, C. D. V., Studebaker, G. A., Sherbecoe, R. L. (1985). An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. J Acoust Soc Am, 80, 50-57.
28. Peterson, G., & Lehiste, I. (1962). Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord, 27, 62-70.
29. Potts, L. G., Skinner, M. W., Gotter, B. D., et al. (2007). Relation between Neural Response Telemetry thresholds, MAP T and C levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult Nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear, 28, 495-511.
30. Raphael, L. J., Borden, G. J., Harris, K. S. (2007). Speech Science Primer: Phsysiology, Acoustics and Perception of Speech (5th ed.). Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
31. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Fourakis, M. S., et al. (2006). Evaluation of equivalency in two recordings of monosyllabic words. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 350-366.
32. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A., et al. (1997). Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 101, 3766-3782.
33. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A., et al. (1999). Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 42, 814-828.
34. Stelmachowicz, P., Lewis, D., Karasek, A., et al. (1994). Situational Hearing Aid Response Profile (SHARP version 2.0). Omaha, NE: Boys Town National Research Hospital.
35. Studebaker, G. A., & Sherbecoe, R. L. (1993). Frequency importance functions for speech recognition. In G. A. Studebaker, & I. Hochberg (Eds), Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance (2nd ed., pp, 185-204). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
36. Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., Lawson, D. T., et al. (1991). Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature, 352, 236-238.
37. Zeng, F-G., Grant, G., Niparko, J., et al. (2002). Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 377-386. (Pubitemid 34093332)