Effect of Digital Frequency Compression (DFC) on Speech Recognition in Candidates for Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) Purpose To compare the effects of conventional amplification (CA) and digital frequency compression (DFC) amplification on the speech recognition abilities of candidates for a partial-insertion cochlear implant, that is, candidates for combined electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS). Method The participants were 6 patients whose audiometric thresholds at 500 ... Research Article
Research Article  |   October 01, 2007
Effect of Digital Frequency Compression (DFC) on Speech Recognition in Candidates for Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation (EAS)
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • René H. Gifford
    Arizona State University, Tempe
  • Michael F. Dorman
    Arizona State University, Tempe
  • Anthony J. Spahr
    Arizona State University, Tempe
  • Sharon A. McKarns
    Arizona State University, Tempe
  • Contact author: René H. Gifford, who is now at Mayo Clinic, Eisenberg 2F, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail: gifford.rene@mayo.edu.
Article Information
Hearing & Speech Perception / Hearing Disorders / Hearing Aids, Cochlear Implants & Assistive Technology / Hearing / Research Articles
Research Article   |   October 01, 2007
Effect of Digital Frequency Compression (DFC) on Speech Recognition in Candidates for Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation (EAS)
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 2007, Vol. 50, 1194-1202. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/083)
History: Received May 31, 2006 , Revised December 18, 2006 , Accepted February 4, 2007
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 2007, Vol. 50, 1194-1202. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/083)
History: Received May 31, 2006; Revised December 18, 2006; Accepted February 4, 2007
Web of Science® Times Cited: 16

Purpose To compare the effects of conventional amplification (CA) and digital frequency compression (DFC) amplification on the speech recognition abilities of candidates for a partial-insertion cochlear implant, that is, candidates for combined electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS).

Method The participants were 6 patients whose audiometric thresholds at 500 Hz and below were ≤60 dB HL and whose thresholds at 2000 Hz and above were ≥80 dB HL. Six tests of speech understanding were administered with CA and DFC. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was also administered following use of CA and DFC.

Results Group mean scores were not statistically different in the CA and DFC conditions. However, 2 patients received substantial benefit in DFC conditions. APHAB scores suggested increased ease of communication, but also increased aversive sound quality.

Conclusion Results suggest that a relatively small proportion of individuals who meet EAS candidacy will receive substantial benefit from a DFC hearing aid and that a larger proportion will receive at least a small benefit when speech is presented against a background of noise. This benefit, however, comes at a cost—aversive sound quality.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by National Institute on Deafness and Other Comunication Disorders Grants DC006538 and RO1 DC00654-15. We thank AVR Sonovation Inc., and in particular Wendy Davis and Barak Dar (formerly of AVR Sonovation) for providing the time, training, and information necessary for fitting the hearing aids in the study. We also thank Robert G. Turner and Chris Turner for their helpful comments and suggestions on previous versions of this article. A portion of the reported findings was presented in August 2006 at the International Hearing Aid Research Conference in Lake Tahoe, CA.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access