Advanced search
Publication Cover
International Journal of Audiology Volume 56, 2017 - Issue 9
Submit an article Journal homepage
2,368
Views
10
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Article

Evaluation of a wireless remote microphone in bimodal cochlear implant recipients

Jantien L. VroegopDepartment of ENT, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the NetherlandsCorrespondence[email protected]
,
J. Gertjan DingemanseDepartment of ENT, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the NetherlandsORCID Iconhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8837-3474
ORCID Icon,
Nienke C. HomansDepartment of ENT, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
&
André GoedegebureDepartment of ENT, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Pages 643-649 | Received 29 Sep 2016, Accepted 08 Mar 2017, Published online: 10 Apr 2017

References

  • Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol, 57, 289–300.
  • Blamey, P.J., Maat, B., Başkent, D., Mawman, D., Burke, E., et al. 2015. A retrospective multicenter study comparing speech perception outcomes for bilateral implantation and bimodal rehabilitation. Ear Hear, 36, 408–416.
  • Bosman, A.J. & Smoorenburg, G.F. 1995. Intelligibility of Dutch CVC syllables and sentences for listeners with normal hearing and with three types of hearing impairment. Audiology, 34, 260–284.
  • Ching, T.Y.C., van Wanrooy, E. & Dillon, H. 2007. Binaural-bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation for managing severe to profound deafness: A review. Trends in Amplif, 11, 161–191.
  • de Ceulaer, G., Bestel, J., Mülder, H.E., Golddeck, F., de Varebeke, S.P.J. & Govaerts, P.J. 2015. Speech understanding in noise with the Roger Pen, Naida CI Q70 processor and integrated Roger 17 receiver in a multi-talker network. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 273, 1107–1114.
  • Dingemanse, J.G. & Goedegebure, A. 2015. Application of noise reduction algorithm ClearVoice in cochlear implant processing: Effects on noise tolerance and speech intelligibility in noise in relation to spectra resolution. Ear Hear, 36, 357–367.
  • Dorman, M.F., Cook, S., Spahr, A., Zhang, T., Loiselle, L., et al. 2015. Factors constraining the benefit to speech understanding of combining information from low-frequency hearing and a cochlear implant. Hear Res, 322, 107–111.
  • Hersbach, A.A., Arora, K., Mauger, S.J., & Dawson P.W. 2012. Combining directional microphone and single-channel noise reduction algorithms: A clinical evaluation in difficult listening conditions with cochlear implant users. Ear Hear, 33, e13–e23.
  • Holube, I., Fredelake, S., Vlaming, M. & Kollmeier, B. 2010. Development and analysis of an International Speech Test Signal (ISTS). Int J Aud, 49, 891–903.
  • Illg, A., Bojanowicz, M., Lesinski-Schiedat, A., Lenarz T., & Buchner A. 2014. Evaluation of the bimodal benefit in a large cohort of cochlear implant subjects using a contralateral hearing aid. Otol Neurotol, 35, e240–e244.
  • Kreikemeier, S., Margolf-Hackl, S., Raether, J., Fichtl, E., & Kiessling, J. 2013. Comparison of different directional microphone technologies for moderate-to-severe hearing loss. Hear Rev, 20, 44–45.
  • Lenarz, M., Sonmez, H., Joseph, G., Buchner, A., & Lenarz, T. 2012. Cochlear implant performance in geriatric patients. Laryngoscope, 122, 1361–1365.
  • Morera, C., Cavalle, L., Manrique, M., Huarte, A., Angel, R., et al. 2012. Contralateral hearing aid use in cochlear implanted patients: Multicenter study of bimodal benefit. Acta Otolaryngol, 132, 1084–1094.
  • Picou, E., Aspell, E. & Ricketts, T. 2014. Potential benefits and limitations of three types of directional processing in hearing aids. Ear Hear, 35, 339–352.
  • Pearsons, K.S., Bennett, R.L. & Fidell, S. 1977. Speech levels in various noise environments (Report No. EPA-600/1-77-025). Washington (DC): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  • Schafer, E.C. & Thibodeau, L. 2004. Speech recognition abilities of adults using cochlear implants with FM systems. J Am Acad Audiol, 15, 678–691.
  • Schafer, E.C., Wolfe, J., Lawless, T., Stout, B. 2009. Effects of FM-receiver gain on speech-recognition performance of adults with cochlear implants. Int J Audiol, 48, 196–203.
  • Spriet, A., Van Deun, L., Eftaxiadis, K., Laneau, J., Moonen, M, et al. 2007. Speech understanding in background noise with the two-microphone adaptive beamformer BEAM in the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant system. Ear Hear, 28, 62–72.
  • Srinivasan, A.G., Padilla, M., Shannon, R.V., Landsberger, D.M. 2013. Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users. Hear Res, 299, 20–36.
  • Versfeld, N.J., Daalder, L., Festen, J.M., Houtgast, T. 2000. Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 1671–1684.
  • Wolfe, J., Morais, M. & Schafer, E. 2015. Improving hearing performance for cochlear implant recipients with use of a digital, wireless, remote-microphone, audio-streaming accessory. J Am Acad Audiol, 26, 532–539.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.