Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems
- PMID: 15292777
- DOI: 10.1097/01.aud.0000134552.22205.ee
Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to conduct a large-scale investigation with adult recipients of the Clarion, Med-El, and Nucleus cochlear implant systems to (1) determine average scores and ranges of performance for word and sentence stimuli presented at three intensity levels (70, 60, and 50 dB SPL); (2) provide information on the variability of scores for each subject by obtaining test-retest measures for all test conditions; and (3) further evaluate the potential use of lower speech presentation levels (i.e., 60 and/or 50 dB SPL) in cochlear implant candidacy assessment.
Design: Seventy-eight adult cochlear implant recipients, 26 with each of the three cochlear implant systems, participated in the study. To ensure that the data collected reflect the range of performance of adult recipients using recent technology for the three implant systems (Clarion HiFocus I or II, Med-El Combi 40+, Nucleus 24M or 24R), a composite range and distribution of consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) monosyllabic word scores was determined. Subjects using each device were selected to closely represent this range and distribution of CNC performance. During test sessions, subjects were administered the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentence test and the CNC word test at three presentation levels (70, 60, and 50 dB SPL). HINT sentences also were administered at 60 dB SPL with a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of +8 dB. Warble tones were used to determine sound-field threshold levels from 250 to 4000 Hz. Test-retest measures were obtained for each of the speech recognition tests as well as for warble-tone sound-field thresholds.
Results: Cochlear implant recipients using the Clarion, Med-El, or Nucleus devices performed on average equally as well at 60 compared with 70 dB SPL when listening for words and sentences. Additionally, subjects had substantial open-set speech perception performance at the softer level of 50 dB SPL for the same stimuli; however, subjects' ability to understand speech was poorer when listening in noise to signals of greater intensity (60 dB SPL + 8 SNR) than when listening to signals presented at a soft presentation level (50 dB SPL) in quiet. A significant correlation was found between sound-field thresholds and speech recognition scores for presentation levels below 70 dB SPL. The results demonstrated a high test-retest reliability with cochlear implant users for these presentation levels and stimuli. Average sound-field thresholds were between 24 and 29 dB HL for frequencies of 250 to 4000 Hz, and results across sessions were essentially the same.
Conclusions: Speech perception measures used with cochlear implant candidates and recipients should reflect the listening challenges that individuals encounter in natural communication situations. These data provide the basis for recommending new candidacy criteria based on speech recognition tests presented at 60 and/or 50 dB SPL, intensity levels that reflect real-life listening, rather than 70 dB SPL.
Similar articles
-
Effects of Threshold Adjustment on Speech Perception in Nucleus Cochlear Implant Recipients.Ear Hear. 2016 May-Jun;37(3):303-11. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000248. Ear Hear. 2016. PMID: 26671316
-
Optimization of programming parameters in children with the advanced bionics cochlear implant.J Am Acad Audiol. 2012 May;23(5):302-12. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.23.5.2. J Am Acad Audiol. 2012. PMID: 22533974 Free PMC article.
-
An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.Ear Hear. 2003 Apr;24(2):157-74. doi: 10.1097/01.AUD.0000058107.64929.D6. Ear Hear. 2003. PMID: 12677112
-
Identification of Pure-Tone Audiologic Thresholds for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Candidacy: A Systematic Review.JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Jul 1;144(7):630-638. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2018.0652. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018. PMID: 29800000
-
Optimizing cochlear implant speech performance.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2003 Sep;191:4-13. doi: 10.1177/00034894031120s903. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2003. PMID: 14533838 Review.
Cited by
-
Systematic Review of Auditory Training Outcomes in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes.J Clin Med. 2024 Jan 11;13(2):400. doi: 10.3390/jcm13020400. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 38256533 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Relationships Among Peripheral and Central Electrophysiological Measures of Spatial and Spectral Selectivity and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.Ear Hear. 2015 Jul-Aug;36(4):441-53. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000144. Ear Hear. 2015. PMID: 25658746 Free PMC article.
-
A clinical assessment of cochlear implant recipient performance: implications for individualized map settings in specific environments.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Nov;273(11):4011-4020. doi: 10.1007/s00405-016-4130-2. Epub 2016 Jun 8. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016. PMID: 27276990 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of hearing aid frequency response fittings in pediatric and young adult bimodal recipients.J Am Acad Audiol. 2015 Apr;26(4):393-407. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.26.4.7. J Am Acad Audiol. 2015. PMID: 25879243 Free PMC article.
-
A longitudinal study of speech perception skills and device characteristics of adolescent cochlear implant users.J Am Acad Audiol. 2012 May;23(5):341-9. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.23.5.5. J Am Acad Audiol. 2012. PMID: 22533977 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous