Investigating Quick Speech-in-Noise Comprehension in Adult Bimodal Users
-
Javad Fakhri
,
Nematollah Rouhbakhsh
,
Reza Hoseinabadi
,
Farzaneh Fatahi
,
Mahsa Sepehernejad
,
Zohreh Roghani
Abstract
Introduction: The use of cochlear implants, due to technological limitations, causes problems in speech comprehension in the presence of noise. This study aimed to evaluate the speech-in-noise (SIN) comprehension with emphasis on high-frequency components between users of different bimodal adult.
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted on 33 adult participants with a mean age of 36 years using bimodal (cochlear implant in one ear and hearing aid in another ear: CI/HA) style of different companies. Quick SIN with emphasis on high-frequency components was performed on the participants using an audiometer, an amplifier, and one speaker.
Results: Comparing the average percentage of correct answers from the word recognition test in the presence of noise in bimodal users showed that the Cochlear brand provides a better signal-to-noise (SNR) compare to other brands. Our result shows that bimodal users of Advance bionic and Med-El groups have better performance in speech recognition than other brands.
Conclusion: Bimodal users of Advance bionic and Med-El have better SNR loss than other brands. Besides, further studies on different ages can be helpful to make the right decision in this regard.
Knutson JF, Lansing CR. The relationship between communication problems and psychological difficulties in persons with profound acquired hearing loss. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders. 1990; 55(4):656-64. [DOI:10.1044/jshd.5504.656] [PMID]
Bess FH, Dodd-Murphy J, Parker RA. Children with minimal sensorineural hearing loss: Prevalence, educational performance, and functional status. Ear and Hearing. 1998; 19(5):339-54. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-199810000-00001] [PMID]
King AM. The national protocol for paediatric amplification in Australia. International Journal of Audiology. 2010; 49(suppl 1):S64-9. [DOI:10.3109/14992020903329422] [PMID]
Ching TY, Incerti P, Hill M. Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears. Ear and Hearing. 2004; 25(1):9-21. [DOI:10.1097/01.AUD.0000111261.84611.C8] [PMID]
Sparreboom M, van Schoonhoven J, van Zanten BG, Scholten RJ, Mylanus EA, Grolman W, et al. The effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implants for severe-to-profound deafness in children: A systematic review. Otology & Neurotology. 2010; 31(7):1062-71. [DOI:10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181e3d62c] [PMID]
Sucher CM, McDermott HJ. Bimodal stimulation: Benefits for music perception and sound quality. Cochlear Implants International. 2009; 10(suppl 1):96-9. [DOI:10.1002/cii.398] [PMID]
Ching TY, Incerti P, Hill M, van Wanrooy E. An overview of binaural advantages for children and adults who use binaural/bimodal hearing devices. Audiology and Neurotology. 2006; 11(suppl 1):6-11. [DOI:10.1159/000095607] [PMID]
Mok M, Grayden D, Dowell RC, Lawrence D. Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2006; 49(2):338-51. [DOI:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/027)]
Luntz M, Shpak T, Weiss H. Binaural-bimodal hearing: Concomitant use of a unilateral cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid. Acta Oto-laryngologica. 2005; 125(8):863-9. [DOI:10.1080/00016480510035395] [PMID]
Kong Y-Y, Carlyon RP. Improved speech recognition in noise in simulated binaurally combined acoustic and electric stimulation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2007; 121(6):3717-27. [DOI:10.1121/1.2717408] [PMID]
Nie K, Barco A, Zeng F-G. Spectral and temporal cues in cochlear implant speech perception. Ear and Hearing. 2006; 27(2):208-17. [DOI:10.1097/01.aud.0000202312.31837.25] [PMID]
Warrier CM, Johnson KL, Hayes EA, Nicol T, Kraus N. Learning impaired children exhibit timing deficits and training-related improvements in auditory cortical responses to speech in noise. Experimental Brain Research. 2004; 157(4):431-41. [DOI:10.1007/s00221-004-1857-6] [PMID]
Chermak GD. Central auditory processing disorders. 1997.http://www.txsha.org/_pdf/convention/08convention/speaker%20handouts/chermak,%20gail-auditory%20processing%20disorder.pdf
Souza PE, Boike KT, Witherell K, Tremblay K. Prediction of speech recognition from audibility in older listeners with hearing loss: Effects of age, amplification, and background noise. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2007; 18(1):54-65. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.18.1.5] [PMID]
Aarabi S, Jarollahi F, Badfar S, Hosseinabadi R, Ahadi M. Speech perception in noise mechanisms. AudIiTtory andVestibular Research. 2016; 25(4):221-6. file:///C:/Users/b.fallahi/Downloads/106320160408.pdf
Stiepan S, Siegel J, Lee J, Souza P, Dhar S. The association between physiological noise levels and speech understanding in noise. Ear and Hearing. 2020; 41(2):461-4. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000753] [PMID] [PMCID]
Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2004; 116(4 Pt 1):2395-405. [DOI:10.1121/1.1784440] [PMID]
Duncan KR, Aarts NL. A comparison of the HINT and Quick SIN tests. Journal of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology. 2006; 30(2):86. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nancy-Aarts/publication/237402105_A_comparison_of_the_HINT_and_Quick_SIN_tests/links/00b4952f8daf34e9ab000000/A-comparison-of-the-HINT-and-Quick-SIN-tests.pdf
Nábělek AK, Pickett J. Reception of consonants in a classroom as affected by monaural and binaural listening, noise, reverberation, and hearing aids. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1974; 56(2):628-39. [DOI:10.1121/1.1903301] [PMID]
Cunningham J, Nicol T, Zecker SG, Bradlow A, Kraus N. Neurobiologic responses to speech in noise in children with learning problems: Deficits and strategies for improvement. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2001; 112(5):758-67. [DOI:10.1016/S1388-2457(01)00465-5]
Stickney GS, Assmann PF, Chang J, Zeng FG. Effects of cochlear implant processing and fundamental frequency on the intelligibility of competing sentences. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2007; 122(2):1069-78. [DOI:10.1121/1.2750159] [PMID]
Assmann P, Summerfield Q. The perception of speech under adverse conditions. Speech processing in the auditory system. New York: Springer; 2004. p. 231-308. [DOI:10.1007/0-387-21575-1_5]
Baumann O, Belin P. Perceptual scaling of voice identity: Common dimensions for different vowels and speakers. Psychological Research PRPF. 2010; 74(1):110-20. [DOI:10.1007/s00426-008-0185-z] [PMID]
Cullington HE, Zeng FG. Comparison of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant users on speech recognition with competing talker, music perception, affective prosody discrimination and talker identification. Ear and Hearing. 2011; 32(1):16-30. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181edfbd2] [PMID] [PMCID]
Crew JD, Galvin JJ 3rd, Fu QJ. Perception of sung speech in bimodal cochlear implant users. Trends in Hearing. 2016; 20:2331216516669329. [DOI:10.1177/2331216516669329] [PMID] [PMCID]
Choi JE, Moon IJ, Kim EY, Park H-S, Kim BK, Chung W-H, et al. Sound localization and speech perception in noise of pediatric cochlear implant recipients: Bimodal fitting versus bilateral cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing. 2017; 38(4):426-40. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000401] [PMID]
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 15 No 3 (2021) | |
| Section | Research Article(s) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/jmr.v15i3.7736 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Cochlear implant Bimodal implantation Speech recognition Noisy backgrounds Speech in noise perception | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
