Limits...
Evaluation of the ClearVoice Strategy in Adults Using HiResolution Fidelity 120 Sound Processing.

Kam AC, Ng IH, Cheng MM, Wong TK, Tong MC - Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol (2012)

Bottom Line: No significant difference in performance was noted among the 3 settings in quiet.Most subjects reported high level of satisfaction with ClearVoice in daily listening situations and preferred to keep ClearVoice on.ClearVoice can help cochlear implant recipients to hear better in noise.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Institute of Human Communicative Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of ClearVoice strategy on speech perception in noise and in everyday listening situations in Cantonese-speaking cochlear implant users.

Methods: Twelve experienced adult users of the Harmony implant and HiRes 120 sound processing participated in the study. The study employed a prospective within-subjects design wherein speech recognition in adults using HiRes 120 without ClearVoice turned on (control option) was compared to their performance with HiRes 120 with ClearVoice turned on. Each subject was evaluated with two different ClearVoice gain settings: -12 dB (ClearVoice medium) and -18 dB (ClearVoice high) after one-week of use. The Cantonese hearing in noise test and a questionnaire were used as the outcome measures.

Results: Subjects performed significantly better with ClearVoice medium than with control option in noise. No significant difference in performance was noted among the 3 settings in quiet. Most subjects reported high level of satisfaction with ClearVoice in daily listening situations and preferred to keep ClearVoice on.

Conclusion: ClearVoice can help cochlear implant recipients to hear better in noise.

No MeSH data available.


Individual speech recognition scores in quiet.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3369991&req=5

Figure 1: Individual speech recognition scores in quiet.

Mentions: Speech recognition performance was assessed with the CHINT. The individual scores in quiet and in noise for all 12 subjects are shown in Figs. 1 and 2 respectively. The SNR used in testing in noise for individual subjects are listed in Table 1. The average percent correct in quiet was 62.1% (SD, 28.3), 60.67% (SD, 27.3), and 57.7% (SD, 26.0) for the control, ClearVoice medium and ClearVoice high program, respectively. Paired samples t-test revealed no significant difference in the speech recognition score in quiet among the three listening programs. The average percent correct in noise was 35.5% (SD, 20.0), 41.0% (SD, 20.5), and 38.9% (SD, 17.3) for the control, ClearVoice medium and ClearVoice high program, respectively. Paired samples t-test revealed that speech perception in noise was significantly better with ClearVoice medium program than with the control program (t=-2.9, P<0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in speech perception in noise between ClearVoice medium and Clear Voice high or between ClearVoice high and control program. The mean speech recognition scores obtained in quiet and in noise with the three tested programs are shown in Fig. 3.


Evaluation of the ClearVoice Strategy in Adults Using HiResolution Fidelity 120 Sound Processing.

Kam AC, Ng IH, Cheng MM, Wong TK, Tong MC - Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol (2012)

Individual speech recognition scores in quiet.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3369991&req=5

Figure 1: Individual speech recognition scores in quiet.
Mentions: Speech recognition performance was assessed with the CHINT. The individual scores in quiet and in noise for all 12 subjects are shown in Figs. 1 and 2 respectively. The SNR used in testing in noise for individual subjects are listed in Table 1. The average percent correct in quiet was 62.1% (SD, 28.3), 60.67% (SD, 27.3), and 57.7% (SD, 26.0) for the control, ClearVoice medium and ClearVoice high program, respectively. Paired samples t-test revealed no significant difference in the speech recognition score in quiet among the three listening programs. The average percent correct in noise was 35.5% (SD, 20.0), 41.0% (SD, 20.5), and 38.9% (SD, 17.3) for the control, ClearVoice medium and ClearVoice high program, respectively. Paired samples t-test revealed that speech perception in noise was significantly better with ClearVoice medium program than with the control program (t=-2.9, P<0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in speech perception in noise between ClearVoice medium and Clear Voice high or between ClearVoice high and control program. The mean speech recognition scores obtained in quiet and in noise with the three tested programs are shown in Fig. 3.

Bottom Line: No significant difference in performance was noted among the 3 settings in quiet.Most subjects reported high level of satisfaction with ClearVoice in daily listening situations and preferred to keep ClearVoice on.ClearVoice can help cochlear implant recipients to hear better in noise.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Institute of Human Communicative Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of ClearVoice strategy on speech perception in noise and in everyday listening situations in Cantonese-speaking cochlear implant users.

Methods: Twelve experienced adult users of the Harmony implant and HiRes 120 sound processing participated in the study. The study employed a prospective within-subjects design wherein speech recognition in adults using HiRes 120 without ClearVoice turned on (control option) was compared to their performance with HiRes 120 with ClearVoice turned on. Each subject was evaluated with two different ClearVoice gain settings: -12 dB (ClearVoice medium) and -18 dB (ClearVoice high) after one-week of use. The Cantonese hearing in noise test and a questionnaire were used as the outcome measures.

Results: Subjects performed significantly better with ClearVoice medium than with control option in noise. No significant difference in performance was noted among the 3 settings in quiet. Most subjects reported high level of satisfaction with ClearVoice in daily listening situations and preferred to keep ClearVoice on.

Conclusion: ClearVoice can help cochlear implant recipients to hear better in noise.

No MeSH data available.