Volume 27, Issue 3 (Avicenna Journal of Clinical Medicine-Autumn 2020)                   Avicenna J Clin Med 2020, 27(3): 171-177 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Emami S F. Comparison of Word Recognition Score in White Noise in Patients with Cochlear Implant Prosthesis toward Patients with Hearing Aid. Avicenna J Clin Med 2020; 27 (3) :171-177
URL: http://sjh.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-2094-en.html
Assistant Professor, Hearing Disorders Research Center, Audiology Department, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran , faranak_imami@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (1674 Views)
Background and Objective: Cochlear implants make high-frequency information audible for patients, which is usually impossible using hearing aids. This study was conducted to compare cochlear implants with hearing aids regarding word recognition score in the presence of white noise.
Materials and Methods: In this analytical cross-sectional study, two groups of children with a cochlear implant or hearing aid (n=12 each) participated in 50 auditory rehabilitation sessions. The subjects were subject to hearing tests, namely  Pure Tone Audiometry Tympanometry, Speech Reception Threshold, and Word Discrimination Score in Quiet and in White Noise (WD in WN). Word discrimination in white noise test was performed in two levels: 1) In signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio of +5 dB, with the speaker volume and noise intensity equal to 60 dB and 55 dB, respectively, and 2) In SNR ratio of +10 dB, with the speaker volume and noise intensity equal to 60 dB and 50 dB, respectively.
Results: According to the findings, in SNRs of +5 and +10 dB, the mean scores of WD in WN in children with implants (58% and 65%, respectively) were higher than those of children wearing hearing aids (50% and 58%, respectively). Based on the results of the t-test, the difference between WD in WN scores in the SNR ratios of +5 dB and +10 dB was significant in children with implant prosthesis compared to those wearing hearing aids (P=0.02 and P=0.03, respectively).
Conclusion: It can be concluded that receiving a cochlear implant, rather than hearing aids, along with participating in auditory rehabilitation sessions can lead to more effective and efficient changes in children's hearing function and increase their speech comprehension.
 
Full-Text [PDF 757 kb]   (639 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original | Subject: Audiology

References
1. Zwolan TA. Cochlear implants. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard R, editors. Hand book of clinical audiology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002. P. 71-88.
2. Wesarg T, Richter N, Hessel H, Günther S, Arndt S, Aschendorff A, et al. Binaural integration of periodically alternating speech following cochlear implantation in subjects with profound sensorineural unilateral hearing loss. Audiol Neurootol. 2015;20(Suppl 1):73-8. PMID: 25997868 DOI: 10.1159/000380752
3. Snik A, Agterberg M, Bosman A. How to quantify binaural hearing in patients with unilateral hearing using hearing implants. Audiol Neurootol. 2015;20(Suppl 1):44-7. PMID: 25997479 DOI: 10.1159/000380747
4. Boisvert I, McMahon CM, Dowell RC, Lyxell B. Long-term asymmetric hearing affects cochlear implantation outcomes differently in adults with pre- and postlingual hearing loss. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0129167. PMID: 26043227 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129167
5. Buell TJ, Ksendzovsky A, Shah BB, Kesser BW, Elias WJ. Deep brain stimulation in the setting of cochlear implants: case report and literature review. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2015;93(4):245-9. PMID: 25998722 DOI: 10.1159/000380824
6. Nittrouer S, Kuess J, Lowenstein JH. Speech perception of sine-wave signals by children with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015;137(5):2811-22. PMID: 25994709 DOI: 10.1121/1.4919316
7. Park E, Amoodi H, Kuthubutheen J, Chen JM, Nedzelski JM, Lin VY. Predictors of round window accessibility for adult cochlear implantation based on pre-operative CT scan: a prospective observational study. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;44(1):20. PMID: 26016568 DOI: 10.1186/s40463-015-0073-7
8. Casserly ED. Effects of real-time cochlear implant simulation on speech production. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015;137(5):2791-800. PMID: 25994707 DOI: 10.1121/1.4916965
9. Wang N, Kreft HA, Oxenham AJ. Loudness context effects in normal-hearing listeners and cochlear-implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2015;16(4):535-45. PMID: 26040213 DOI: 10.1007/s10162-015-0523-y

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2023 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Avicenna Journal of Clinical Medicine

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb