Combined Electric and Contralateral Acoustic Hearing: Word and Sentence Recognition With Bimodal Hearing Purpose: The authors assessed whether (a) a full-insertion cochlear implant would provide a higher level of speech understanding than bilateral low-frequency acoustic hearing, (b) contralateral acoustic hearing would add to the speech understanding provided by the implant, and (c) the level of performance achieved with electric stimulation plus contralateral ... Article/Report
Article/Report  |   August 2007
Combined Electric and Contralateral Acoustic Hearing: Word and Sentence Recognition With Bimodal Hearing
 
Author Notes
  • Contact author: René H. Gifford, who is now at the Mayo Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, 200 First Street Southwest, Eisenberg 2F, Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail: gifford.rene@mayo.edu.
  • © 2007 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationAmerican Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Article Information
Hearing & Speech Perception / Acoustics / Swallowing, Dysphagia & Feeding Disorders / Hearing
Article/Report   |   August 2007
Combined Electric and Contralateral Acoustic Hearing: Word and Sentence Recognition With Bimodal Hearing
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, August 2007, Vol. 50, 835-843. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/058)
History: Received April 10, 2006 , Accepted December 10, 2006
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, August 2007, Vol. 50, 835-843. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/058)
History: Received April 10, 2006; Accepted December 10, 2006
Web of Science® Times Cited: 53

Purpose: The authors assessed whether (a) a full-insertion cochlear implant would provide a higher level of speech understanding than bilateral low-frequency acoustic hearing, (b) contralateral acoustic hearing would add to the speech understanding provided by the implant, and (c) the level of performance achieved with electric stimulation plus contralateral acoustic hearing would be similar to performance reported in the literature for patients with a partial insertion cochlear implant.

Method: Monosyllabic word recognition as well as sentence recognition in quiet and at +10 and +5 dB was assessed. Before implantation, scores were obtained in monaural and binaural conditions. Following implantation, scores were obtained in electric-only and electric-plus-contralateral acoustic conditions.

Results: Postoperatively, all individuals achieved higher scores in the electric-only test conditions than they did in the best pre-implant test conditions. All individuals benefited from the addition of low-frequency information to the electric hearing.

Conclusion: A full-insertion cochlear implant provides better speech understanding than bilateral, low-frequency residual hearing. The combination of an implant and contralateral acoustic hearing yields comparable performance to that of patients with a partially inserted implant and bilateral, low-frequency acoustic hearing. These data suggest that a full-insertion cochlear implant is a viable treatment option for patients with low-frequency residual hearing.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Grant DC006538 from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), awarded to René H. Gifford, and by Grant RO1 DC00654-15 from NIDCD, awarded to Michael F. Dorman. A portion of the results was presented at the 2005 Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses in Pacific Grove, California; the 2005 Fifth Asia Pacific Symposium on Cochlear Implant and Related Sciences in Hong Kong; and the 2006 Hearing Preservation Workshop in Raleigh, North Carolina. We would like to thank Chris Turner and Helen Cullington for providing suggestions that greatly improved this article.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access