| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Lyxell, Björn, et al.
(författare)
-
Phonological representation and speech understanding with cochlear implants in deafened adults
- 1998
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. - : Wiley. - 0036-5564 .- 1467-9450. ; 39:3, s. 175-179
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In the present study cognitive performance in 15 deafened adult cochlear implant candidates was examined and related to level of speech understanding after 12 months of experience with the implant. The implant group performed on par with normal hearing controls in all cognitive tasks used in the study with one exception: Performance was significantly lower in cognitive tasks where use of a phonological representation of sound is a key task-demand. Observations of the implanted individuals' level of speech understanding indicate that only those individuals who, pre-operatively, were in possession of phonological representations comparable to that of normal hearing could follow and understand a speaker that was out of sight. The results are discussed with respect to (a) deterioration in the phonological representation of sounds as a function of absence of external auditory stimulation, and (b) the role of cognitive factors in predicting success in speech understanding with the implant.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Persson, Pekka, et al.
(författare)
-
Speech recognition in background noise : Monaural versus binaural listening conditions in normal-hearing patients
- 2001
-
Ingår i: Otology and Neurotology. - 1531-7129 .- 1537-4505. ; 22:5, s. 625-630
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Hypothesis: Patients with unilateral conductive hearing impairment often experience a great advantage in improved hearing thresholds after reconstructive ear surgery because the binaural hearing leads to increased speech recognition in competing noise. The aim of this study was to develop a clinical audiometric test to quantify the ability of speech recognition in background noise preoperatively and postoperatively. Methods: A model consisting of phonetically balanced (PB) monosyllabic words and/or a just-follow-conversation test (JFC) was used in 16 normal-hearing listeners. In 8 of the participants, JFC at two levels of background noise (60 and 40 dB sound pressure level) was used as the only method. The tasks were performed in an anechoic chamber with varying spatial separations of speech and noise sources under free field conditions. The tests were made binaurally and monaurally, the latter condition was achieved by occluding one ear with a hearing protector. In PB word tests, the percent of correctly repeated words was scored. In the JFC task, the speech signal was adjusted by the listener to a level where he or she could just understand what was being said. This was expressed as a signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio. Results: In both types of tests, the subjects achieved significantly better speech recognition scores in the binaural situations. In summary, compared with monaural conditions, the subjects achieved 17% to 18% better speech recognition in PB tests, and in JFC tests a 2-to 3-dB lower S/N ratio in binaural conditions. Conclusion: These free field tests can be developed further as a clinical tool preoperatively and postoperatively to evaluate the effect of binaural hearing after ear surgery.
|
|
