The effect of front-end processing on cochlear implant performance of children

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 533-538

  Wolfe, Jace ^a,d   Schafer, Erin C ^b   John, Andrew ^c   Hudson, Mary ^c  

^a Hearts for Hearing Foundation   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

^d NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Children; Cochlear implants; Noise; Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CHILD; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; MALE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PHYSIOLOGY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 79958012404     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: 15374505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318210b6ec     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Eisenberg LS, Johnson KC, Martinez AS, et al. CDaCI Investigative Team. Speech recognition at 1-year follow-up in the childhood development after cochlear implantation study: Methods and preliminary findings. Audiol Neurootol 2006;11: 259-68. (Pubitemid 43882393)
2. Tobey EA, Rekart D, Buckley K, Geers AE. Mode of communication and classroom placement impact on speech intelligibility. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:639-43. (Pubitemid 38609678)
3. Anderson I, Weichbold V, D'Haese P. Three-year follow-up of children with open-set speech recognition who use the MEDEL cochlear implant system. Cochlear Implants Int 2004;5: 45-57. (Pubitemid 38961340)
4. Schafer EC, Thibodeau LM. Speech recognition performance of children using cochlear implants and FM systems. J Educ Audiol 2003;11:15-26.
5. Schafer EC, Thibodeau LM. Speech recognition abilities of adults using cochlear implants with FM systems. J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15:678-91.
6. Spahr A, Dorman MF, Loiselle LH. Performance of patients using different cochlear implant systems: Effects of input dynamic range. Ear Hear 2007;28:260-75. (Pubitemid 46673501)
7. Wolfe J, Schafer EC, Heldner B, Mulder H, Vincent B. Evaluation of speech recognition in noise with cochlear implants and dynamic FM. J Am Acad Audiol 2009;20:409-21.
8. Spahr A, Dorman M. Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus Esprit 3G cochlear implant devices. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:624-8.
9. Davidson LS, Skinner MW, Holstad BA, et al. The effect of instantaneous input dynamic range setting on the speech perception of children with the Nucleus 24 implant. Ear Hear 2009;30: 340-9.
10. Dawson PW, Vandali AE, Knight MR, Heasman JM. Clinical evaluation of expanded input dynamic range in Nucleus cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2007;28:163-76. (Pubitemid 46673494)
11. James CJ, Blamey PJ, Martin L, Swanson B, Just Y, Macfarlane D. Adaptive dynamic range optimization for cochlear implants: A preliminary study. Ear Hear 2002;23:49SY58. (Pubitemid 34195174)
12. Dawson PW, Decker JA, Psarros CE. Optimizing dynamic range in children using the Nucleus cochlear implant. Ear Hear 2004;25: 230-41. (Pubitemid 38744508)
13. Gifford RH, Revit LJ. (Submitted). Speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in a realistic background noise: Effectiveness of preprocessing strategies and external options for improving speech recognition in noise. J Am Acad Audiol 2010;21: 441-51.
14. Spriet A, Van Deun L, Eftaxiadis K, et al. Speech understanding in background noise with the two-microphone adaptive beamformer BEAM in the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant system. Ear Hear 2007;28:62-72. (Pubitemid 46066844)
15. Lewis D, Eiten L. Hearing instrument selection and fitting in children. In: Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H, Roeser R, eds. Audiology: Treatment. New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc, 2008: 94-118.
16. Ricketts TA, Galster J. Head angle and elevation in classroom environments: Implications for amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008;51:516-25. (Pubitemid 351838312)
17. Ching TY, O'Brien A, Dillon H, et al. Directional effects on infants and young children in real life: Implications for amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2009;52:1241-54.
18. Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech in Noise Test-BKB-SIN. Elk Grove, IL: Etymotic Research, 2004.
19. Sanderson-Leepa ME, Rintelmann WF. Articulation functions and test-retest performance of normal-hearing children on three speech discrimination tests: WIPI, PBK-50, NU Auditory Test No 6. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1976;41:503-19.
20. Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994;95:1085-99. (Pubitemid 24056373)