The Acceptance of Background Noise in Adult Cochlear Implant Users Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine (a) if acceptable noise levels (ANLs) are different in cochlear implant (CI) users than in listeners with normal hearing, (b) if ANLs are related to sentence reception thresholds in noise in CI users, and (c) if ANLs and subjective outcome measures ... Research Article
Research Article  |   April 01, 2008
The Acceptance of Background Noise in Adult Cochlear Implant Users
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Patrick N. Plyler
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville
  • Junghwa Bahng
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville
  • Deborah von Hapsburg
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville
  • Contact author: Patrick N. Plyler, Department of Audiology & Speech Pathology, University of Tennessee, 578 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996. E-mail: pplyler@utk.edu.
Article Information
Hearing Disorders / Hearing Aids, Cochlear Implants & Assistive Technology / Hearing / Research Articles
Research Article   |   April 01, 2008
The Acceptance of Background Noise in Adult Cochlear Implant Users
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, April 2008, Vol. 51, 502-515. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/036)
History: Received November 14, 2006 , Revised April 25, 2007 , Accepted August 5, 2007
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, April 2008, Vol. 51, 502-515. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/036)
History: Received November 14, 2006; Revised April 25, 2007; Accepted August 5, 2007
Web of Science® Times Cited: 18

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine (a) if acceptable noise levels (ANLs) are different in cochlear implant (CI) users than in listeners with normal hearing, (b) if ANLs are related to sentence reception thresholds in noise in CI users, and (c) if ANLs and subjective outcome measures are related in CI users.

Method ANLs and the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT; M. Nilsson, S. Soli, & J. Sullivan, 1994) were examined in 9 adult CI users and 15 adult listeners with normal hearing. In addition, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB; R. M. Cox & G. C. Alexander, 1995) and a satisfaction questionnaire were administered to CI users only.

Results Results indicated that (a) ANLs were not significantly different for CI users and listeners with normal hearing, (b) ANLs were not correlated with HINT values for either group, (c) ANL was not significantly correlated with APHAB scores, and (d) ANL was significantly correlated with overall CI benefit on the satisfaction questionnaire.

Conclusions CI users with large ANLs reported more benefit from implants than those with small ANLs. The results of this preliminary study of ANL in CI users suggest that ANL can be used as a tool for evaluating processing in noise in individual CI users.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access