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.


Distribution of the strength of preference for the preferred program (1, very weak preference; 10, very strong preference).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 4: Distribution of the strength of preference for the preferred program (1, very weak preference; 10, very strong preference).

Mentions: All subjects preferred the ClearVoice programs. Half of the subjects preferred the ClearVoice medium and half of the subjects preferred the ClearVoice high program. The subjects were asked to rate the strength of their preference on the preferred program on a 10-point scale (1, very weak preference; 10, very strong preference). The average rating on strength of preference was 7.9. Distribution of the strength of preference for the preferred programs is depicted in Fig. 4. One-third of the subjects would like to use the ClearVoice programs all of the time and the remaining two-third of the subjects would like to use the ClearVoice programs most of the time. No subject preferred the control program or would like to turn the ClearVoice off.


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)

Distribution of the strength of preference for the preferred program (1, very weak preference; 10, very strong preference).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 4: Distribution of the strength of preference for the preferred program (1, very weak preference; 10, very strong preference).
Mentions: All subjects preferred the ClearVoice programs. Half of the subjects preferred the ClearVoice medium and half of the subjects preferred the ClearVoice high program. The subjects were asked to rate the strength of their preference on the preferred program on a 10-point scale (1, very weak preference; 10, very strong preference). The average rating on strength of preference was 7.9. Distribution of the strength of preference for the preferred programs is depicted in Fig. 4. One-third of the subjects would like to use the ClearVoice programs all of the time and the remaining two-third of the subjects would like to use the ClearVoice programs most of the time. No subject preferred the control program or would like to turn the ClearVoice off.

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.