Frequency-dependent loudness balancing in bimodal cochlear implant users

21Citations
Citations of this article
63Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Abstract: Conclusion In users of a cochlear implant (CI) and a hearing aid (HA) in contralateral ears, frequency-dependent loudness balancing between devices did, on average, not lead to improved speech understanding as compared to broadband balancing. However, nine out of 15 bimodal subjects showed significantly better speech understanding with either one of the fittings. Objectives Sub-optimal fittings and mismatches in loudness are possible explanations for the large individual differences seen in listeners using bimodal stimulation. Methods HA gain was adjusted for soft and loud input sounds in three frequency bands (0–548, 548–1000, and >1000 Hz) to match loudness with the CI. This procedure was compared to a simple broadband balancing procedure that reflected current clinical practice. In a three-visit cross-over design with 4 weeks between sessions, speech understanding was tested in quiet and in noise and questionnaires were administered to assess benefit in real world. Results Both procedures resulted in comparable HA gains. For speech in noise, a marginal bimodal benefit of 0.3 ± 4 dB was found, with large differences between subjects and spatial configurations. Speech understanding in quiet and in noise did not differ between the two loudness balancing procedures.

Cited by Powered by Scopus

This article is free to access.

This article is free to access.

This article is free to access.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Veugen, L. C. E., Chalupper, J., Snik, A. F. M., van Opstal, A. J., & Mens, L. H. M. (2016). Frequency-dependent loudness balancing in bimodal cochlear implant users. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 136(8), 775–781. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2016.1155233

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 17

53%

Researcher 9

28%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

19%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Nursing and Health Professions 12

33%

Medicine and Dentistry 10

28%

Neuroscience 8

22%

Engineering 6

17%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free