Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol ; 273(5): 1107-14, 2016 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25983309

ABSTRACT

Roger is a digital adaptive multi-channel remote microphone technology that wirelessly transmits a speaker's voice directly to a hearing instrument or cochlear implant sound processor. Frequency hopping between channels, in combination with repeated broadcast, avoids interference issues that have limited earlier generation FM systems. This study evaluated the benefit of the Roger Pen transmitter microphone in a multiple talker network (MTN) for cochlear implant users in a simulated noisy conversation setting. Twelve post-lingually deafened adult Advanced Bionics CII/HiRes 90K recipients were recruited. Subjects used a Naida CI Q70 processor with integrated Roger 17 receiver. The test environment simulated four people having a meal in a noisy restaurant, one the CI user (listener), and three companions (talkers) talking non-simultaneously in a diffuse field of multi-talker babble. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were determined without the Roger Pen, with one Roger Pen, and with three Roger Pens in an MTN. Using three Roger Pens in an MTN improved the SRT by 14.8 dB over using no Roger Pen, and by 13.1 dB over using a single Roger Pen (p < 0.0001). The Roger Pen in an MTN provided statistically and clinically significant improvement in speech perception in noise for Advanced Bionics cochlear implant recipients. The integrated Roger 17 receiver made it easy for users of the Naida CI Q70 processor to take advantage of the Roger system. The listening advantage and ease of use should encourage more clinicians to recommend and fit Roger in adult cochlear implant patients.


Subject(s)
Cochlear Implantation , Cochlear Implants , Deafness/physiopathology , Deafness/therapy , Noise , Speech Perception , Adult , Aged , Deafness/psychology , Female , Hearing Tests , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prosthesis Design , Speech Reception Threshold Test
2.
J Am Acad Audiol ; 24(8): 714-24, 2013 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24131607

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Previous research supports the use of frequency modulation (FM) systems for improving speech recognition in noise of individuals with cochlear implants (CIs). However, at this time, there is no published research on the potential speech recognition benefit of new digital adaptive wireless radio transmission systems. PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare speech recognition in quiet and in noise of CI recipients while using traditional, fixed-gain analog FM systems, adaptive analog FM systems, and adaptive digital wireless radio frequency transmission systems. RESEARCH DESIGN: A three-way repeated-measures design was used to examine performance differences among devices, among speech recognition conditions in quiet and in increasing levels of background noise, and between users of Advanced Bionics and Cochlear CIs. STUDY SAMPLE: Seventeen users of Advanced Bionics Harmony CI sound processors and 20 users of Cochlear Nucleus 5 sound processors were included in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Participants were tested in a total of 32 speech-recognition-in noise-test conditions, which included one no-FM and three device conditions (fixed-gain FM, adaptive FM, and adaptive digital) at the following signal levels: 64 dBA speech (at the location of the participant) in quiet and 64 dBA speech with competing noise at 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, and 80 dBA noise levels. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between the users of Advanced Bionics and Cochlear CIs. All of the radio frequency system conditions (i.e., fixed-gain FM, adaptive FM, and adaptive digital) outperformed the no-FM conditions in test situations with competing noise. Specifically, in conditions with 70, 75, and 80 dBA of competing noise, the adaptive digital system provided better performance than the fixed-gain and adaptive FM systems. The adaptive FM system did provide better performance than the fixed-gain FM system at 70 and 75 dBA of competing noise. At the lower noise levels of 50, 55, 60, and 65 dBA, no significant differences were detected across the three systems, and no significant differences were found across the quiet conditions. In all conditions, performance became poorer as the competing noise level increased. CONCLUSIONS: In high levels of noise, the adaptive digital system provides superior performance when compared to adaptive analog FM and fixed-gain FM systems.


Subject(s)
Auditory Threshold/physiology , Cochlear Implants , Deafness/rehabilitation , Speech Perception/physiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Deafness/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prosthesis Design , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...