Biomedical subjects

Shelley Witt

Publications and source records attributed to Shelley Witt.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Some benefits and limitations of binaural cochlear implants and our ability to measure them.

We review new recognition and localization skills in patients using one or two cochlear implant(s). We observed one unilateral patient who showed localization performance above chance. We also provide evidence for binaural processing in bilateral cochlear implant patients, even when tested with speech from the front without noise. We unsuccessfully attempted to find correlations between localization and squelch, between these variables and pre-implant threshold differences, or these variables and post-implant recognition differences. We strongly believe that new tests are needed to examine the potential benefit of two implants. We describe three tests that we use to show a binaural advantage: cued recognition, movement direction, and recognition with multiple jammers.

Auditory Threshold↗

PubMed2005

Recognition of "real-world" musical excerpts by cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were (a) to compare recognition of "real-world" music excerpts by postlingually deafened adults using cochlear implants and normal-hearing adults; (b) to compare the performance of cochlear implant recipients using different devices and processing strategies; and (c) to examine the variability among implant recipients in recognition of musical selections in relation to performance on speech perception tests, performance on cognitive tests, and demographic variables. DESIGN: Seventy-nine cochlear implant users and 30 normal-hearing adults were tested on open-set recognition of systematically selected excerpts from musical recordings heard in real life. The recognition accuracy of the two groups was compared for three musical genre: classical, country, and pop. Recognition accuracy was correlated with speech recognition scores, cognitive measures, and demographic measures, including musical background. RESULTS: Cochlear implant recipients were significantly less accurate in recognition of previously familiar (known before hearing loss) musical excerpts than normal-hearing adults (p < 0.001) for all three genre. Implant recipients were most accurate in the recognition of country items and least accurate in the recognition of classical items. There were no significant differences among implant recipients due to implant type (Nucleus, Clarion, or Ineraid), or programming strategy (SPEAK, CIS, or ACE). For cochlear implant recipients, correlations between melody recognition and other measures were moderate to weak in strength; those with statistically significant correlations included age at time of testing (negatively correlated), performance on selected speech perception tests, and the amount of focused music listening following implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Current-day cochlear implants are not effective in transmitting several key structural features (i.e., pitch, harmony, timbral blends) of music essential to open-set recognition of well-known musical selections. Consequently, implant recipients must rely on extracting those musical features most accessible through the implant, such as song lyrics or a characteristic rhythm pattern, to identify the sorts of musical selections heard in everyday life.

Acoustic Stimulation↗

PubMed2003

The effects of familiarity and complexity on appraisal of complex songs by cochlear implant recipients and normal hearing adults.

The purposes of this study were (a) to develop a test of complex song appraisal that would be suitable for use with adults who use a cochlear implant (assistive hearing device) and (b) to compare the appraisal ratings (liking) of complex songs by adults who use cochlear implants (n = 66) with a comparison group of adults with normal hearing (n = 36). The article describes the development of a computerized test for appraisal, with emphasis on its theoretical basis and the process for item selection of naturalistic stimuli. The appraisal test was administered to the 2 groups to determine the effects of prior song familiarity and subjective complexity on complex song appraisal. Comparison of the 2 groups indicates that the implant users rate 2 of 3 musical genres (country western, pop) as significantly more complex than do normal hearing adults, and give significantly less positive ratings to classical music than do normal hearing adults. Appraisal responses of implant recipients were examined in relation to hearing history, age, performance on speech perception and cognitive tests, and musical background.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Three-month results with bilateral cochlear implants.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate possible binaural listening advantages for speech in quiet, speech in noise, and for localization in a group of postlingually deafened adults with two cochlear implants functioning independently after 3 mo experience. DESIGN: Nine postlingually deafened subjects who had received a Cochlear Corporation CI24M implant in each ear were evaluated on a number of tasks. The subjects all had audiometric or biographical (e.g., duration of deafness) differences between the ears. Word and sentence materials were presented to the subjects in quiet and in noise with the signal always in the front and the noise from the front or either side. Results are reported for each ear and for both ears with the noise on either side. This allowed evaluation of head shadow and squelch effects. Additionally, localization ability was assessed for broadband noise presented either to the right or left of center at 45 degrees azimuth. Localization was assessed for each ear and for both ears. RESULTS: Results of speech testing in quiet showed a significant advantage for the binaural condition over the better ear in four subjects. In noise, with both signal and noise in front of the subject, a significant advantage of two ears over the better ear was found for four subjects. For noise to one side of the head, when the ear opposite the noise source was added to the ear ipsilateral to the noise, a significant advantage was demonstrated for seven of seven tested subjects. When the ear ipsilateral to the noise was added to the ear contralateral to the noise, a significant advantage was shown for only one of seven (noise on right) and three of seven (noise on left) tested subjects. The localization task showed that all seven tested subjects could discriminate 45 degrees left from 45 degrees right above chance with bilateral stimulation. Three subjects could perform the discrimination above chance with only one ear. However, performance with both ears was significantly better than performance with one ear for two of these latter subjects. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that bilateral cochlear implants can provide real advantages, particularly when it is possible to utilize the ear that is away from a noise source, thus taking advantage of the head shadow effect. In addition, localization ability was generally better with two implants than with one.

Acoustic Stimulation↗

PubMed2002

Patients utilizing a hearing aid and a cochlear implant: speech perception and localization.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this pilot study was to document speech perception and localization abilities in patients who use a cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the other ear. DESIGN: We surveyed a group of 111 cochlear implant patients and asked them whether they used a hearing aid on their unimplanted ear. The first three patients who were available were tested on word and sentence recognition and localization tasks. Speech stimuli were presented from the front in quiet and in noise. In the latter conditions, noise was either from the front, the right, or the left. Localization was tested with noise bursts presented at 45 degrees from the right or left. In addition we asked the patients about their abilities to integrate the information from both devices. RESULTS: Speech perception tests in quiet showed a binaural advantage for only one of the three patients for words and none for sentences. With speech and noise both in front of the patient, two patients performed better with both devices than with either device alone. With speech in front and noise on the hearing aid side, no binaural advantage was seen, but with noise on the cochlear implant side, one patient showed a binaural advantage. Localization ability improved with both devices for two patients. The third patient had above-chance localization ability with his implant alone. CONCLUSIONS: A cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the other ear can provide binaural advantages. The patient who did not show a clear binaural advantage had the poorest hearing aid alone performance. The absolute and relative levels of performance at each ear are likely to influence the potential for binaural integration.

Cochlear Implants↗

PubMed2002

Effects of frequency, instrumental family, and cochlear implant type on timbre recognition and appraisal.

The purpose of this study was to compare postlingually deafened cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults on timbre (tone quality) recognition and appraisal of 8 musical instruments representing 3 frequency ranges and 4 instrumental families. The implant recipients were significantly less accurate than the normal-hearing adults on timbre recognition. The implant recipients gave significantly poorer ratings than did the normal-hearing adults to those instruments played in the higher frequency range and to those from the string family. The timbre measures were weakly correlated with speech perception measures, but were significantly correlated with 3 cognitive measures of sequential processing.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

Effects of training on timbre recognition and appraisal by postlingually deafened cochlear implant recipients.

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of structured training on recognition and appraisal of the timbre (tone quality) of musical instruments by postlingually deafened cochlear implant recipients. Twenty-four implant users (Nucleus CI24M) were randomly assigned to a control or a training group. The control group experienced only incidental exposure to music in their usual daily routine. The training group participated in 12 weeks of training delivered via a laptop computer in which they were introduced to excerpts of musical instruments representing three frequency ranges and four instrumental families. Those implant recipients assigned to the training group showed significant improvement in timbre recognition (p < .0001) and timbre appraisal (p < .02) compared to the control group. Correlations between timbre measures and speech perception measures are discussed.

Adult↗