Koklear implantlıların konuşma performansı Üzerinde FM Sistem Etkisi

The effects of FM system on cochlear implant recipients speech performance

Objective:This study aimed to examine the effects of Frequency Modulation (FM) system on cochlear implant recipients speech understanding in noisy environments. Material and Method: In this case study three cochlear implant users whose speech performance were evaluated good moderate and bad according to their monosyllabic word discrimination score in a quiet condition were tested to show the effects of FM system in a noisy condition. Threshold level (in dB HL) at 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, 6000 Hz. and open set monosyllabic word discrimination scores were determined in quiet and in noisy conditions in three cases. Moreover, these tests were also repeated with FM system in noisy condition. Results: In noisy condition without FM, a decrease was found in hearing threshold levels and word discrimination scores for all three subjects. With FM system in noisy condition, hearing thresholds and word discrimination scores again increased as in quiet setting. Conclusion: FM system provides better speech understanding in noisy conditions for cochlear implant users by reducing the effects of noise, reverberation and distance. It shows that cochlear implant users have an advantage of better speech understanding in daily life with FM system.

PDF

___

1. Fryauf-Bertschy H, Tyler RS, Kelsay DM. Performance over time of congenitally deaf and postlingually deafened children using a mulitchannel cochlear implant. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1992;35:91320.
2. Miyamoto RT, Osberger MJ, Robbins AM, Myres WA, Kessler K. Prelingually deafened childrens performance with the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant. American Journal of Otology 1993;14(5):43745.
3. Waltzman SB, Cohen N, Shapiro W. Effects of cochlear implantation on the young deaf child. Advances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 1995;50: 1258.
4. Miyamoto RT, Svirsky M, Kirk KI, Robbins AM, Todd S, Riley A. Speech intelligibility of children with multichannel cochlear implants. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 1997;168:356.
5. Svirsky MA, Chute PM, Green J, Bollard P, Miyamoto R. Language development in children who are prelingually deaf who have used the SPEAK or CIS stimulation strategies since initial stimulation. Volta Review 2002;102:199213.
6. Lutman ME, Tait DM. Early communicative behavior in young children receiving cochlear implants: factor analysis of turn-taking and gaze orientation. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 1995;166:3979.
7. Gfeller K, Christ A, Knutson JF, Witt S, Murray KT, Tyler RS. Musical backgrounds, listening habits, and aesthetic enjoyment of adult cochlear implant recipients. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 2000;11:390406.
8. Schafer EC, Thibodeau LM. Speech recognition abilities of adults using CIs interfaced with FM systems. Journal of American Academy of Audiology 2004;15(10):67891.
9. Wolfe J, Schafer EC. Optimizing the benefit of Auria sound processors coupled to personal FM systems with iConnect2 adaptors. Journal of American Academy of Audiology 2008;19(8):585-94.
10. Wouters J, Vanden Berghe J. Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implantees with a two-microphone monaural adaptive noise reduction system. Ear and Hearing 2001;22:420-30.
11. Finitzo-Hieber T, Tillman T. Room acoustics effects on monosyllabic word discrimination ability for normal and hearing-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1978;21:44058.
12. Hall JW III. New Handbook of Auditory Evoked Responses.New York: Allyn&Bacon; 2006.
13. Bradley J. Speech intelligibility studies in classrooms. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1986;80:84654.
14. Crandell C. Classroom acoustics for hearing-impaired children. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1992;92:2470.
15. Finitzo-Hieber T. Classroom acoustics. in: Roeser R, editor. 2nd ed. Auditory disorders in school children. New York: Thieme-Stratton; 1988. p:2213.
16. Kodaras M. Reverberation times of typical elementary school settings. Noise Control 1960;6:179.
17. Knecht HA, Nelson PB, Whitelaw GM, Feth LL. Background noise levels and reverberation times in unoccupied classrooms: predictions and measurements. American Journal of Audiology 2002;11: 6571.
18. Crandell C, Bess F. Speech recognition of children in a typical classroom setting. Asha 1986; 82.
19. Crum D. The effects of noise, reverberation, and speaker-to- listener distance on speech understanding (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. 1974.
20. Olsen W. Acoustics and amplification in classrooms for the hearing impaired. in: Bess FH, editor. Childhood deafness: Causation, assessment, and management. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1993.
21. Anderson KL, Goldstein H, Colodzin L, Iglehart F. Benefit of S/N enhancing devices to speech perception of children listening in a typical classroom with hearing aids or a CI. Journal of Educational Audiology 2005; 12:1428.
22.Akşit AM. Konuşmayı ayırtetme testi için izofonik kelime listelerinin oluşturulması (tez).İstanbul: Marmara Üniversites, sağlık BilimleriEnstitüsü Odyoloji ve Konuşma Bozuklukları Bilim Dalı 1994.
23. McArdle R, Abrams HB, Chisolm TH. When hearing aids go bad: an FM success story. Journal of American Academy of Audiology 2005;16: 80921.
24. Anderson K, Goldstein H. Speech perception benefits of FM and infrared devices to children with hearing aids in a typical classroom. Language Speech Hearing Services 2004;35:16984.
25. Johnston KN, John AB, Kreisman NV, Hall JW III, Crandell CC. Multiple benefits of personal FM system use by children with auditory processing disorder (APD). International Journal of Audiolology 2009;48: 37183.
26. Nillson M, Soli SD, Sullivan J. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 1994;95:108599.
27. Nelson PB, Jin SH, Carney AE, Nelson DA. Understanding speech in modulated interference: CI users and normal hearing listeners. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 2003;113(2):96168.