Biomedical subjects

Shelley A Witt

Publications and source records attributed to Shelley A Witt.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Effects of converting bilateral cochlear implant subjects to a strategy with increased rate and number of channels.

OBJECTIVES: Three different Advanced Bionics processing strategies were evaluated: 1) 8-channel, 813 pulses per second (pps), Continuous Interleaved Sampling (CIS); 2) 16-channel, 5,100 pps, HiResolution Paired (HiRes P); and 3) 16-channel, 2,900 pps, HiResolution Sequential (HiRes S). METHODS: Seven adult bilateral Clarion CII cochlear implant recipients who had been using a CIS processing strategy for at least 18 months participated in this study. Sentence recognition in multitalker babble from the front was collected on subjects using their CIS strategy and after subjects were programmed for the first time with HiRes P and HiRes S strategies. An ABAB design was implemented for 1 month whereby subjects used each HiResolution strategy every other day. Sentence recognition testing was repeated at the 1- and 3-month post-HiResolution test intervals. RESULTS: Comparisons between the CIS and HiResolution strategies showed immediate improvements for 5 subjects in favor of the HiResolution strategies. After 1 month of alternating between the HiRes P and HiRes S strategies, remarkably, 2 subjects showed improvements of 60%, 2 subjects showed improvements of 40%, and 2 subjects showed improvements of 30% over the CIS strategy that they had previously used for at least 18 months. The results after 3 months of use were consistent with those obtained at 1 month. CONCLUSIONS: The HiRes S and HiRes P strategies resulted in dramatic improvements in speech perception in noise for a subset of subjects who had been using the CIS strategy bilaterally. This finding demonstrates that these subjects were able to tolerate a more difficult signal-to-noise ratio. Further work is needed to determine the independent effects of rate versus number of channels.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Benefit of wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear in adult users of a cochlear implant.

The purpose of this investigation was to document performance of participants wearing a cochlear implant and hearing aid in opposite ears on speech-perception and localization tests. Twelve individuals who wore a cochlear implant and a hearing aid on contralateral ears were tested on their abilities to understand words in quiet and sentences in noise, and to localize everyday sounds. All speech stimuli were presented from the front, with the noise stimuli presented from the front, the right, or the left at a 90 degrees angle. Binaural summation in quiet and in noise, binaural squelch effects, and localization were studied to determine bilateral advantages. The magnitude of the monaural head shadow effect (the difference in unilateral performance when noise was facing the unilateral device vs. when the noise was opposite the unilateral device) also was studied. The test setup for localization was composed of an 8-speaker array spanning an arc of approximately 108 degrees in front of each participant. Group results yielded a statistically significant combined benefit of wearing a hearing aid in conjunction with a cochlear implant on opposite ears in noise conditions. Those participants who received a binaural advantage in 1 condition did not necessarily show a binaural advantage in another. Only 2 participants out of 12 were able to localize when wearing 2 devices. Further efforts are required to improve the integration of information from combined use of cochlear implant and hearing aid devices for enhancement of speech perception in noise and localization.

Aged↗

PubMed2004

Trade-offs between better hearing and better cosmetics.

A case study is reported of an adult bilateral cochlear implant patient who owns both a pair of ear-level and body-worn speech processors and chooses to wear them in unique configurations, knowingly compromising his auditory performance. The aim was to determine if differences in hearing could be quantified between these devices and to examine the size of these effects that would lend themselves to trading between performance and cosmetics. The patient reported wearing bilateral ear-level speech processors (programmed with the Cochlear Corporation spectral PEAK [SPEAK] coding strategy) 75% of the time for cosmetic and convenience reasons even though he "heard the best" with bilateral body-worn speech processors (programmed with the Cochlear Corporation advanced combination encoder strategy [ACE]). Speech perception and localization tests confirmed that this patient performed significantly better on monosyllabic phonemes in quiet (a difference from 60% to 75%) and localization (a total root-mean-squared-error difference from 22 degrees to 12degrees ) with bilateral body-worn speech processors and consistently rated various speech sounds as more clear than with bilateral ear-level units. There was a 2-dB difference in sentence reception threshold in noise, which was not statistically significant. These results suggest that clinicians should consider and provide options to patients when there are trade-offs to be made regarding understanding performance and cosmetics. Some individuals may choose better speech perception over cosmetics, and the ability to choose might result in greater compliance. The observations made here are relevant to hearing aid users as well.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Update on bilateral cochlear implantation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Providing a unilateral cochlear implant in a patient with a profound bilateral hearing loss has now been a standard clinical practice for more than a decade. Although results are often very good, normal hearing has not been restored. One exciting opportunity to improve hearing in this population is to provide a second implant. However, it is not obvious that bilateral electrical stimulation can be integrated by the central nervous system. This article describes binaural hearing and reviews currently published articles on binaural cochlear implants. RECENT FINDINGS: Controlled laboratory trials have focused on distinguishing different categories of potential binaural advantages. A potential summation effect occurs when the same stimulus is available at two ears. Listening in noise with two ears should be better than listening with one ear when the additional ear is away from the noise. This head shadow benefit results from acoustic effects, not physiologic ones. When the second ear is added near the noise source, a binaural squelch benefit can occur, requiring neural integration from both sides. Finally, two ears may improve sound localization. Binaural implantees generally benefit from head shadow effects. Only some benefit from summation and squelch effects. Most, but not all, show improved horizontal plane localization. SUMMARY: It is now appropriate to begin experimental studies of binaural cochlear implants. Preliminary results show promise to improve head shadow, a physical advantage, and sound localization. Some benefits have been observed for improved summation and squelch. These findings have demonstrated that the brain can integrate electrical stimulation from the two ears. Future studies will be required to maximize this binaural hearing.

Cochlear Implantation↗