A comparison of the speech recognition and pitch ranking abilities of children using a unilateral cochlear implant, bimodal stimulation or bilateral hearing aids

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

Volumn 75, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 472-482

  Looi, Valerie ^a   Radford, Christopher John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Bimodal stimulation; Cochlear implants; Hearing aids; Pitch perception; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL STIMULATION; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCHOOL CHILD; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; WORD RECOGNITION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; AGE FACTORS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CHILD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DEAFNESS; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HUMANS; MALE; PITCH PERCEPTION; PROGNOSIS; REFERENCE VALUES; SEX FACTORS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79952723743     PISSN: 01655876     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.12.023     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Oxenham A.J. Pitch perception and auditory stream segregation: implications for hearing loss and cochlear implants. Trends Amplif. 2008, 12(4):316-331.
2. Wilson B.S., Dorman M.F. Cochlear implants: a remarkable future and a brilliant past. Hear. Res. 2008, 242:3-21.
3. Moore B.C.J. Coding of sounds in the auditory system and its relevance to signal processing and coding in cochlear implants. Otol. Neurotol. 2003, 24(2):243-254.
4. Sucher C., McDermott H. Bimodal stimulation: benefits for music perception and sound quality. Cochlear Implants Int. 2009, 10(S1):96-99.
5. Dorman M.F., Gifford R.H., Spahr A.J., McKarns S.A. The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies. Audiol. Neurootol. 2008, 13(2):105-112.
6. Kong Y.Y., Stickney G.S., Zeng F.G. Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 117(3 Pt. 1):1351-1361.
7. Ching T., Incerti P., Hill M., van Wanrooy E. An overview of binaural advantages for children and adults who use binaural/bimodal hearing devices. Audiol. Neurootol. 2006, 11(Suppl. 1):6-11.
8. Ching T., Psarros C., Hill M., Dillon H., Incerti P. Should children who use cochlear implants wear hearing aids in the opposite ear?. Ear Hear. 2001, 22(5):365-380.
9. Looi V. The effect of cochlear implantation on music perception: a review. Otorinolaringologie 2008, 58(4):169-190.
10. McDermott H.J. Music perception with cochlear implants: a review. Trends Amplif. 2004, 8(2):49-82.
11. Vongpaisal T., Trehub S.E., Schellenberg E.G. Identification of TV tunes by children with cochlear implants. Music Percept. 2009, 27(1).
12. Vongpaisal T., Trehub S.E., Schellenberg E.G. Song recognition by children and adolescents with cochlear implants. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2006, 49:1091-1103.
13. Vongpaisal T., Trehub S.E., Schellenberg E.G., Papsin B.C. Music recognition by children with cochlear implants. Int. Congr. Ser. 2004, 1273:193-196.
14. Looi V., McDermott H.J., McKay C., Hickson L. Music perception of cochlear implant users compared with that of hearing aid users. Ear Hear. 2008, 29(3):421-434.
15. Looi V., McDermott H.J., McKay C., Hickson L. The effect of cochlear implantation on music perception by adults with usable pre-operative acoustic hearing. Int. J. Audiol. 2008, 47(5):257-268.
16. Sucher C., McDermott H.J. Pitch ranking of complex tones by normally hearing subjects and cochlear implant users. Hear. Res. 2007, 230(1-2):80-87.
17. Looi V., McDermott H.J., McKay C., Hickson L. Comparisons of quality ratings for music by cochlear implant and hearing aid users. Ear Hear. 2007, 28(Suppl. 2):59S-61S.
18. C. Sucher, Music perception of children who use cochlear implants, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Otolaryngology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne 2007.
19. Gordon E.E. Manual for the Primary Measures of Music Audiation and the Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation 1979, GIA Publications Inc., Chicago, IL.
20. Chang J.E., Bai J.Y., Zeng F.G., Chang J.E., Bai J.Y., Zeng F.-G. Unintelligible low-frequency sound enhances simulated cochlear-implant speech recognition in noise. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2006, 53(12 Pt. 2):2598-2601.
21. Kong Y.Y., Carlyon R.P. Improved speech recognition in noise in simulated binaurally combined acoustic and electric stimulation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 121(6):3717-3727.
22. Stickney G.S., Zeng F.G., Litovsky R., Assmann P. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 116(2):1081-1091.
23. Beijen J., Snik A.F., Straatman L.V., Mylanus E.A.M., Mens L.H.M. Sound localisation and binaural hearing in children with a hearing aid and a cochlear implant. Audiol. Neurootol. 2010, 15:36-43.
24. Mok M., Grayden D., Dowell R.C., Lawrence D. Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2006, 49(2):338-351.
25. Mok M., Galvin K.L., Dowell R.C., McKay C. Speech perception benefit for children with a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears and children with bilateral cochlear implants. Audiol. Neurootol. 2010, 15:44-56.
26. Mok M., Galvin K.L., Dowell L.C., McKay C.M. Spatial unmasking and binaural advantage for children with normal hearing, a cochlear implant and a hearing aid, and bilateral implants. Audiol. Neurootol. 2007, 12:295-306.
27. Gifford R.H., Shallop J.K., Peterson A.M. Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol. Neurootol. 2008, 13(3):193-205.
28. Nilsson M., Soli S.D., Sullivan J.A. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1994, 95(2):1085-1099.
29. Lai W.K., Dillier N.MACarena A flexible computer-based speech testing environment. 7th International Cochlear Implant Conference 2002.
30. Svirsky M.A., Meyer T.A. Comparison of speech perception in pediatric Clarion® cochlear implant and hearing aid users. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 1999, 108(Suppl. 177):104-109.
31. Eisenberg L.S., Kirk K.I., Martinez A.S., Ying E.A., Miyamoto R.T. Communication abilities of children with aided residual hearing: comparison with cochlear implant users. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2004, 130(5):563-569.
32. Blamey P.J., Sarant J.Z., Paatsch L.E., Barry J.G., Bow C.P., Wales R.J., et al. Relationships among speech perception, production, language, hearing loss, and age in children with impaired hearing. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2001, 44(2):264-285.
33. Rotteveel L.J.C., Snik A.F., Vermeulen A.M., Cremers C.W.R.J., Mylanus E.A.M. Speech perception in congenitally, pre-lingually and post-lingually deaf children expressed in an equivalent hearing loss value. Clin. Otolaryngol. 2008, 33:560-569.
34. Dunn C.C., Tyler R.S., Witt S.A. Benefit of wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear in adult users of a cochlear implant. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2005, 48(3):668-680.
35. Flynn M.C., Dowell R.C., Clark G.M. Aided speech recognition abilities of adults with a severe or severe-to-profound hearing loss. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 1998, 41(2):285-299.
36. Luxford W.M., Allum D., Balkany T., Brimacomb J.A., Cohen N., Gantz B., et al. Minimum speech test battery for postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2001, 124:125-126.
37. Stalinski S.M., Schellenberg E.G., Trehub S.E. Developmental changes in the perception of pitch contour: distinguishing up from down. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 124(3):1759-1763.
38. Moore B.C.J. Perceptual consequences of cochlear hearing loss and their implications for the design of hearing aids. Ear Hear. 1996, 17(2):133-161.
39. Shamma S., Klein D. The case of the missing pitch templates: how harmonic templates emerge in the early auditory system. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2000, 107:2631-2644.
40. Arehart K.H. Effects of harmonic content on complex-tone fundamental-frequency discrimination in hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1994, 95(6):3574-3585.
41. Pretorius L.L., Hanekom J.J. Free field frequency discrimination abilities of cochlear implant users. Hear. Res. 2008, 244(1-2):77-84.
42. Laneau J., Wouters J., Moonen M. Relative contributions of temporal and place pitch cues to fundamental frequency discrimination in cochlear implantees. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 116(6):3606-3619.
43. Fu Q.J., Nogaki G. Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2005, 6(1):19-27.
44. Fishman K.E., Shannon R.V., Slattery W.H. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 1997, 40:1201-1215.
45. Friesen L.M., Shannon R.V., 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(2):1150.
46. Incesulu A., Nadol J.B. Correlation of acoustic threshold measures and spiral ganglion cell survival in severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss: implications for cochlear implantation. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 1998, 107(11):906-911.
47. Miura M., Sando I., Hirsch B.E., Orita Y. Analysis of spiral ganglion cell populations in children with normal and pathological ears. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 2002, 111(12 Pt. 1):1059-1065.
48. McKay C., McDermott H.J., Clark G.M. Pitch percepts associated with amplitude-modulated current pulse trains in cochlear implantees. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1994, 96(5):2664-2673.
49. McKay C., McDermott H.J., Clark G.M. Pitch matching of amplitude-modulated current pulse trains by cochlear implantees: the effect of modulation depth. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1995, 97(3):1777-1785.
50. Zeng F.G. Temporal pitch in electric hearing. Hear. Res. 2002, 174(1-2):101-106.
51. Geurts L., Wouters J. Coding of the fundamental frequency in continuous interleaved sampling processors for cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2001, 109(2):713-726.
52. El Fata F., James C.J., Laborde M.L., Fraysse B. How much residual hearing is 'useful' for music perception with cochlear implants?. Audiol. Neurotol. 2009, 14(Suppl 1):14-21.
53. Gfeller K., Christ A., Knutson J.F., Witt S., Murray K.T., Tyler R.S. Musical backgrounds, listening habits, and aesthetic enjoyment of adult cochlear implant recipients. JAAA 2000, 11:390-406.
54. Gfeller K., Knutson J.F., Woodworth G.G., Witt S., DeBus B. Timbral recognition and appraisal by adult cochlear implant users and normal-hearing adults. JAAA 1998, 9(1):1-19.
55. Gfeller K., Oleson J., Knutson J.F., Breheny P., Driscoll V., Olszewski C. Multivariate predictors of music perception and appraisal by adult cochlear implant users. JAAA 2008, 19(2):120-134.
56. Gfeller K., Shelley A., Witt S., L J., Stordahl J., Tomblin B. Musical involvement and enjoyment of children who use cochlear implants. Volta Rev. 1998, 100(4):213-234.
57. Moore B.C.J., Carlyon R.P. Perception of pitch by people with cochlear hearing loss and by cochlear implant users. Pitch: Neural Coding and Perception 2005, Springer, USA. C.J. Plack, A.J. Oxenham, R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper (Eds.).
58. Beal A.L. The skill of recognizing musical structures. Mem. Cognit. 1985, 13(5):405-412.
59. Pitt M.A., Crowder R.G. The role of spectral and dynamic cues in imagery for musical timbre. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1992, 18(3):728-738.