These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Assessing the Quality of Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing: Implications for Combined Electroacoustic Stimulation With Cochlear Implants.
    Author: Spitzer ER, Landsberger DM, Friedmann DR.
    Journal: Ear Hear; 2021; 42(2):475-486. PubMed ID: 32976249.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: There are many potential advantages to combined electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS) with a cochlear implant (CI), including benefits for hearing in noise, localization, frequency selectivity, and music enjoyment. However, performance on these outcome measures is variable, and the residual acoustic hearing may not be beneficial for all patients. As such, we propose a measure of spectral resolution that might be more predictive of the usefulness of the residual hearing than the audiogram alone. In the following experiments, we measured performance on spectral resolution and speech perception tasks in individuals with normal hearing (NH) using low-pass filters to simulate steeply sloping audiograms of typical EAS candidates and compared it with performance on these tasks for individuals with sensorineural hearing loss with similar audiometric configurations. Because listeners with NH had similar levels of audibility and bandwidth to listeners with hearing loss, differences between the groups could be attributed to distortions due to hearing loss. DESIGN: Listeners with NH (n = 12) and those with hearing loss (n = 23) with steeply sloping audiograms participated in this study. The group with hearing loss consisted of 7 EAS users, 14 hearing aid users, and 3 who did not use amplification in the test ear. Spectral resolution was measured with the spectral-temporal modulated ripple test (SMRT), and speech perception was measured with AzBio sentences in quiet and noise. Listeners with NH listened to stimuli through low-pass filters and at two levels (40 and 60 dBA) to simulate low and high audibility. Listeners with hearing loss listened to SMRT stimuli unaided at their most comfortable listening level and speech stimuli at 60 dBA. RESULTS: Results suggest that performance with SMRT is significantly worse for listeners with hearing loss than for listeners with NH and is not related to audibility. Performance on the speech perception task declined with decreasing frequency information for both listeners with NH and hearing loss. Significant correlations were observed between speech perception, SMRT scores, and mid-frequency audiometric thresholds for listeners with hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: NH simulations describe a "best case scenario" for hearing loss where audibility is the only deficit. For listeners with hearing loss, the likely broadening of auditory filters, loss of cochlear nonlinearities, and possible cochlear dead regions may have contributed to distorted spectral resolution and thus deviations from the NH simulations. Measures of spectral resolution may capture an aspect of hearing loss not evident from the audiogram and be a useful tool for assessing the contributions of residual hearing post-cochlear implantation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]