Speech Recognition in Noise in Children With Cochlear Implants While Listening in Bilateral, Bimodal, and FM-System Arrangements Purpose: Speech recognition performance in noise was examined in children with cochlear implants (CIs) when using (a) a second CI (bilateral group), (b) a hearing aid (HA) on the nonimplant ear (bimodal group), and (c) a frequency modulation (FM) system on 1 or both sides.Method: While always maintaining ... Paper
Paper  |   December 2006
Speech Recognition in Noise in Children With Cochlear Implants While Listening in Bilateral, Bimodal, and FM-System Arrangements
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Erin C. Schafer
    University of Texas at Dallas
  • Linda M. Thibodeau
    University of Texas at Dallas
  • Contact author: Erin C. Schafer, UNT Speech and Hearing Center, 907 W. Sycamore, Room 266, Denton, TX 76201. E-mail: eschafer@unt.edu.
  • © 2006 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationAmerican Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Article Information
Hearing & Speech Perception / Acoustics / Hearing Disorders / Hearing Aids, Cochlear Implants & Assistive Technology / Research Issues, Methods & Evidence-Based Practice
Paper   |   December 2006
Speech Recognition in Noise in Children With Cochlear Implants While Listening in Bilateral, Bimodal, and FM-System Arrangements
American Journal of Audiology, December 2006, Vol. 15, 114-126. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2006/015)
History: Received March 10, 2006 , Accepted August 30, 2006
 
American Journal of Audiology, December 2006, Vol. 15, 114-126. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2006/015)
History: Received March 10, 2006; Accepted August 30, 2006

Purpose: Speech recognition performance in noise was examined in children with cochlear implants (CIs) when using (a) a second CI (bilateral group), (b) a hearing aid (HA) on the nonimplant ear (bimodal group), and (c) a frequency modulation (FM) system on 1 or both sides.

Method: While always maintaining use of the first CI, 2 groups participated in 6 conditions each using various listening arrangements with the second CI, HA, or FM system. Speech-in-noise thresholds were determined using simple phrases, classroom noise, and a method-of-limits approach.

Results: No group differences were detected across any conditions. In the no-FM-system conditions, no significant benefit of bilateral or bimodal input was found relative to a single CI. In the FM-system conditions, thresholds were significantly lower (up to 20 dB) relative to all other conditions when FM-system input was provided to the first-implanted side or to both sides simultaneously.

Conclusions: Children’s speech-in-noise thresholds did not improve when providing input to the second side with a CI or an HA relative to a single CI. However, children with CIs had better speech recognition in noise with the use of an FM system on one or both sides relative to the conditions with no FM system. Binaural conditions with a single FM receiver on the second CI or HA yielded significantly poorer performance than any other FM condition.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access