Performance of cochlear implant patients while using bimodal stimulation and FM system

References

• Geers A. Speech, language, and reading skills after early cochlear implantation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:634–638.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson K, Goldstein G. Speech perception benefits of FM and infrared devices to children with hearing aids in a typical classroom. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2004;35:169–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson K, Goldstein H, Colodzin L, et al. Benefit of S/N enhancing devices to speech perception of children listening in a typical classroom with hearing aids or a cochlear implant. J Edu Audiol. 2005;12:14–28.
   Google Scholar
• Schafer E, Thibodeau L. Speech recognition in noise in children with cochlear implants while listening in bilateral, bimodal, and FM-system arrangements. Am J Audiol. 2006;15:114–126.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore B. Frequency selectivity and temporal resolution in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Brazilian J Audiol. 1985;19:189–201.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bernstein J, Oxenham A. The relationship between frequency selectivity and pitch discrimination: sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Amer. 2006;120:3929–3945.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorman M, Loizou P, Fitzke J, &et al. The recognition of sentences in noise by normal- hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6–20 channels. J Acoustical Soc Am. 1998;104:3583–3585.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin M, Oxenham A. Effects of introducing un-processed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech. J Acoustical Soc Am. 2006;119:2417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Limb C, Rubinstein J. Current research on music perception in cochlear implant users. Otolaryngologic Clin North Am. 2012;45:129–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T. Hearing aid benefit for children who switched from the SPEAK to the ACE strategy in their contralateral Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Aus New Zealand J Audiol 2000;22:123–132.
   Google Scholar
• Ching T, van Wanrooy E, Hill H, et al. Binaural redundancy and inter-aural time difference cues for patients wearing a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears. Int JAudiol. 2005;44:513–521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thibodeau L. Benefits of adaptive FM systems on speech recognition in noise for listeners who use hearing aids. Am J Audiol. 2010;19:36–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Ceulaer G, Bestel J, Mülder H, et al. 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. 2016;273:1107–1114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gifford R. Who is a cochlear implant candidate? Hear J. 2011;64:16–22.
   Google Scholar
• Cox R, Alexander G. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB). Ear Hear. 1995;16:176–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soliman S. Speech discrimination audiometry using Arabic phonetically-balanced words. Ain Shams Med J. 1976;27:27–30.
   Google Scholar
• Soliman S, El-Mahalawi T. Simple speech test as a predictor for speech reception threshold (SRT) in preschool children [Master thesis]. Egypt: Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University; 1984. Available from: http:URL:library.shams.edu.eg, http://www.audiology-ainshams.com.
   Google Scholar
• Pinheiro M, Ptacek P. Reversals in the perception of noise and tone patterns. J Acoust Soc Am. 1971;49:1778–1783.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCroskey R, Kidder H. Auditory fusion among learning disabled, reading disabled and normal children. J Learn Disabil. 1980;13:69–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luntz M, Yehudai N, Shpak T. Natural history of contralateral residual hearing in binaural-bimodal hearing. Acta Otolaryngol. 2008;128:1322–1328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potts L, Skinner M, Litovsky R, et al. Recognition and localization of speech by adult cochlear implant recipients wearing a digital hearing aid in the non implanted ear (Bimodal Hearing). J Am Acad Audiol. 2009;20:353–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies M, Yellon L, Purdy S. Speech-in-noise perception of children using cochlear implants and FM systems. Aus New Zeland J Audiol. 2001;23:52–62.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenberg L, Kirk K, Martinez A, et al. Communication abilities of children with aided residual hearing: comparison with cochlear implant users. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:563–569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litovsky R, Parkinson A, Arcaroli J, et al. Bilateral cochlear implants in adults and children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:648–655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schafer E, &Thibodeau L. Speech recognition performance of children using cochlear implants and FM systems. J Edu Audiol. 2003;11:15–26.
   Google Scholar
• Abdel Rahman T, Nada I, Abdel Kader H, et al. Neural representation of speech in pediatric cochlear implant recipients. Egyptian J Otolaryngol. 2017;2017:33535–33545.
   Google Scholar
• Fu Q, Nogaki G. Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. Jaro. 2005;6:19–27.
   Google Scholar
• Cazals Y, Pelizzone M, Saudan O, et al. Low-pass filtering in amplitude modulation detection associated with vowel and consonant identification in subjects with cochlear implants. J Acoustical Soc Am. 1994;96:2048–2054.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillenbrand J, Getty L, Clark M, et al. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. J Acoustical Soc Am. 1995;97:3099–3111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Musiek F. Central auditory tests. Scandinavin Audiol. 1999;51:3346.
   Google Scholar
• Muchnik C, Taitelbaum R, Tene S, et al. Auditory temporal resolution and open speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients. Scandanavian Audiol. 1994;23:105–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frederigue N. Recognition of auditory patterns of frequency and duration in children using multichannel cochlear implants. unpublished thesis. Institute of Psychology, University of São Paulo; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Campos P, Alvarenga K, Frederigue N, et al. Temporal organization skills in cochlear implants recipients. Brazilian J Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;74:884–889.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Saki N, Nikakhlagh S, Abshirini H, et al. Processing performance in cochlear implant users. [Unpublished thesis]. Int J Pharma Res Allied Sci. 5:179–182.
   Google Scholar
• Duarte M, Gresele ADP, Pinheiro MMC. Temporal processing in postlingual adult users of cochlear implants. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;82:304–309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagi E, Kaiser A, Meyer T, et al. The effect of temporal gap identification on speech perception by users of cochlear implant. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009;52:385–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sobhy O, Talaat M. Evaluation of Cochlear Implantees performance for acoustic and electrical stimulation on fundamental psychophysical and speech perception tasks. [Unpublished Master thesis]. Alexandria University; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Abdel-Halim P, Kamal N, &Tawfik S. Efficacy of auditory processing training in cochlear implant children a new approach [Unpublished doctor thesis]. Ain Shams University; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Ullauri A, Crofts H, Wilson K, et al. Bimodal benefits of cochlear implant and hearing aid (on the non-implanted ear): a pilot study to develop a protocol and a test battery. Cochlear Implants Int J. 2007;8:29–37.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mok M, Galvin KL, Dowell RC, et al. Speech perception benefit for children with a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears and children with bilateral cochlear implants. Audiol Neurotol. 2010;15:44–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegarty A, Faulkner A. The perception of stress and intonation in children with cochlear implant and a hearing aid. Cochlear Implants Int J. 2013;14:S35–S39.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bartov T, Most T. Recognition by young children with cochlear implants: comparison between unilateral, bilateral and bimodal users. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2014;57:1929–1941.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdeltawwab M, Khater A, El-Anwar M. Contralateral bimodal stimulation: a way to enhance speech performance in arabic-speaking cochlear implant patients. J Oto-rhino- Laryngol Rel Spec. 2016;78:126–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick E, Leblanc S. exploring the factors influencing discontinued hearing aid use in patients with unilateral cochlear implants. Trends Amplification. 2010;14:199–210.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang T, Dorman M, Gifford R, et al. Cochlear dead regions constrain the benefit of combining acoustic stimulation with electric stimulation. Ear Hear. 2014;35:410–417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T, Hill M, Brew J, et al. The effect of auditory experience on speech perception, localization, and functional performance of children who use a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears. Int J Audiol. 2005;44:677–690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luntz M, Shpak T, Weiss H. Binaural-bimodal hearing: concomitant use of a unilateral cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid. Acta Otolaryngologica. 2005;125:863–869.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schafer E, &Kleineck M. Improvements in speech recognition using cochlear implants and three types of FM systems: a meta-analytic approach. J Edu Audiol. 2009;15:4–14.
   Google Scholar
• Dunn C, Tyler R, Witt S. Benefit of wearing a hearing aid on the un implanted ear in adult users of a cochlear implant. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005;48:668–680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler R, Parkinson A, Wilson B, et al. Patients utilizing a hearing aid and a cochlear implant: speech perception and localization. Ear Hear. 2002;23:98–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cristen D, David R, Yixin F, et al. Performance plateau in prelingually and postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol. 2017;38:334–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helms J, Weichbold V, Baumann U, et al. Analysis of ceiling effects occurring with speech recognition tests in adult cochlear-implanted patients. J Oto-rhino-Laryngol. 2004;66:130–135.
   Google Scholar
• Saphr A, Dorman M, Loiselle L. Performance of patients using different cochlear implant systems: effect of input dynamic range. Ear Hear. 2007;28:260–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe J, Schafer E, Heldner B, et al. Evaluation of speech recognition in noise with cochlear implants and dynamic FM. J Am Acad Audiol. 2009;20:409–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe J, Schafer E, Parkinson A, et al. Effects of input processing and type of personal frequency modulation system on speech-recognition performance of adults with cochlear implants. 2012. Ear Hear. 2012;34:52–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gifford R, Revit L. Speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in a realistic background noise: effectiveness of preprocessing strategies and external options for improving speech recognition in noise. J Am Acad Audiol. 2010;21:441–451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eiten L, Lewis D. Verifying frequency-modulated system performance: it’s the right thing to do. Semin Hear. 2010;31:233–240.
   Google Scholar
• Bertachini A, Pupo A, Morettin M, et al. Frequency modulation system and speech perception in the classroom: a systematic literature review. J Communication Disor Audiol Swall. 2015;27:292–300.
   Google Scholar
• Schafer E, Thibodeau L. Speech recognition abilities of adults using cochlear implants interfaced with FM system. J Am Acad Audiol. 2004;15:678–691.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mok M, Grayden D, Dowell RC, et al. Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2006;49:338–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scorpecci A, Giannantonio S, Pacifico C, et al. Bimodal stimulation in prelingually deaf children; lessons from a cross-sectional survey. Otolaryngol head neck sur. 2016;155:1028–1033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T, Incerti P, Hill M. Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears. Ear Hear. 2004;25:9–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gifford R, Dorman M, McKarns S, et al. Combined electric and contralateral acoustic hearing: word and sentence recognition with bimodal hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007;50:835–843.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar