| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Boisvert, Isabelle, et al.
(författare)
-
Choice of Ear for Cochlear Implantation in Adults With Monaural Sound-Deprivation and Unilateral Hearing Aid
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Otology and Neurotology. - : Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins. - 1531-7129 .- 1537-4505. ; 33:4, s. 572-579
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: To identify whether speech recognition outcomes are influenced by the choice of ear for cochlear implantation in adults with bilateral hearing loss who use a hearing aid in 1 ear but have long-term auditory deprivation in the other. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanStudy Design: Retrospective matched cohort study. Speech recognition results were examined in 30 adults with monaural sound deprivation. Fifteen received the implant in the sound-deprived ear and 15 in the aided ear. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanSetting: Tertiary referral centers with active cochlear implant programs. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanPatients: Adults with bilateral hearing loss and a minimum of 15 years of monaural sound deprivation who received a cochlear implant after meeting the traditional implantation criteria of the referral centers. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanIntervention: Cochlear implantation with devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanMain Outcome Measure(s): Paired comparisons of postoperative monosyllabic word recognition scores obtained with the implant alone and in the usual listening condition (CI alone or bimodal). less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanResults: With the cochlear implant alone, individuals who received the implant in a sound-deprived ear obtained poorer scores than individuals who received the implant in the aided ear. There was no significant difference, however, in speech recognition results for the 2 groups when tested in their usual listening condition. In particular, poorer speech recognition scores were obtained with the cochlear implant alone by individuals using bimodal hearing. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanConclusion: Similar clinical outcomes of cochlear implantation can be achieved by adults with a long-term monaural sound deprivation when comparing the usual listening condition, irrespective of whether the implant is in the sound-deprived or in the aided ear.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Boisvert, Isabelle, et al.
(författare)
-
Monaural sound deprivation; opening a window on central processes underlying cochlear implantation outcomes
- 2011
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- When considering unilateral cochlear implantation, clinicians must decide which ear should be implanted. This decision process is made more complex in the case of long-term monaural sound-deprivation where a hearing aid is used in the non-deprived ear. Clinical recommendations are not uniform where some clinicians suggest implanting the sound-deprived ear, regardless of the length of deprivation, to preserve the remaining hearing of the non-deprived ear. Others recommend implanting the non-deprived ear, arguing that implanting a recently stimulated ear provides higher outcomes with the implant. The literature discussing implanting the “better” or “worse” ear is inconclusive and none have specifically compared outcomes of implantation in ears with long-term monaural sound-deprivation.The current study draws its findings from cochlear implant centres located in 3 countries. Comparative analyses of cochlear implantation outcomes obtained in adults with monaural sound-deprivation of durations ranging from 15 to 65 years and implanted in the non-deprived (n≈90) or sound-deprived ear (n≈100) have been conducted. The results show that similar functional outcomes can be achieved by both groups when comparing the everyday listening condition (cochlear implant alone or bimodal hearing [i.e. cochlear implant in one ear and hearing aid in the other]). Moreover, higher outcomes were obtained after cochlear implantation by individuals with a long-term monaural sound-deprivation compared to individuals with a long-term bilateral sound-deprivation (n≈15), irrespective of which ear was implanted. These results pave the way to a discussion about central processes underlying cochlear implantation outcomes.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Boisvert, Isabelle, et al.
(författare)
-
Relative Importance of Monaural Sound Deprivation and Bilateral Significant Hearing Loss in Predicting Cochlear Implantation Outcomes
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Ear and Hearing. - : Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins. - 0196-0202 .- 1538-4667. ; 32:6, s. 758-766
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: Making evidence-based recommendations to prospective unilateral cochlear implant recipients on the potential benefits of implanting one or the other ear is challenging for cochlear implant teams. This particularly occurs in cases where a hearing aid has only been used in one ear for many years (referred to here as the "hearing ear"), and the contralateral ear has, in essence, been sound-deprived. In such cases, research to date is inconclusive, and little anecdotal evidence exists to inform the debate and support best clinical practice. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanDesign: Retrospective data on speech recognition outcomes of 16 adult participants who received a cochlear implant in an ear deprived of sound for a minimum of 15 yr were analyzed. All subjects were implanted through the Quebec Cochlear Implant Program and were provided with personalized intensive rehabilitation services. Data obtained from clinical records included demographic data and speech recognition scores measured after implantation with the sentences of a multimedia auditory test battery in the auditory-only condition. Speech recognition outcomes were compared with the duration of auditory deprivation in the implanted ear, bilateral significant hearing loss, and auditory stimulation before bilateral significant hearing loss. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanResults: Using nonparametric correlation analyses, a strong negative correlation was demonstrated between speech recognition scores and the duration of bilateral significant hearing loss and with the duration of auditory stimulation before bilateral significant hearing loss. No significant correlation with the duration of auditory deprivation or with the duration of prior auditory stimulation in the implanted ear was found. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanConclusions: These findings suggest that functional outcomes of cochlear implantation for unilateral sound deprivation may be more strongly influenced by central processes than peripheral effects stemming from the deprivation per se. This indicates the relevance of considering the clients history of binaural hearing rather than the hearing in each ear individually when discussing possible outcomes with a cochlear implant.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Classon, Elisabet, et al.
(författare)
-
Reading span performance in 339 Swedish 50-89 year old individuals with hearing impairment : Effects of test version and age, and relation to speech recognition in noise
- 2013
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The Swedish reading span test (Rönnberg, Lyxell, Arlinger, & Kinnefors, 1989) is often used to assess working memory capacity (WMC) in the field of cognitive hearing science. The test has proven useful as a predictor of speech recognition in noise in adverse conditions. It has been used in a wide range of experimental studies and has been translated to several languages. The purpose of this paper was to provide reference data for the Swedish reading span test (Rönnberg et al., 1989) in a large sample of adults with hearing impairment aged 50-89 years that are representative of patients seeking rehabilitation at audiological clinics. Data from finished and ongoing projects were collated and reanalyzed for this purpose. The original full version and a shortened version of the test were compared, in terms of percentage correct. In addition, performance on the full version was compared across two different age-cohorts, 50-69 year olds and 70-89 year olds. Frequency distributions and percentile scores are reported, as well as relations with demographic variables, and speech recognition in noise. Results showed that reading span performance was related to age, but not sex, with lower scores in older participants. Pure tone hearing thresholds accounted for a small but significant amount of the variance such that higher reading span scores were related to better hearing. The frequency distributions of scores did not differ across the two versions of the test, but the long version seemed to be more sensitive to age. Performance in both versions was significantly correlated with speech recognition in noise. Regression analyses however showed that reading span explained additional variance in speech in noise recognition, after the effects of age and pure tone hearing thresholds were accounted for, only in the 50-69 year olds. These findings are discussed in relation to age-related differences in the ability to recruit cognitive resources in the service of speech communication.
|
|
