Evaluation of bilaterally implanted adult subjects with the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system

To evaluate the speech perception benefits of bilateral implantation for subjects who already have one implant. Repeated measures. Thirty adult cochlear implant users who received their second implant from 1 to 7 years with a mean of 3 years after their first device. Ages ranged from 29 to 82 years...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Otology & neurotology 2005-09, Vol.26 (5), p.988-998
Hauptverfasser: Ramsden, Richard, Greenham, Paula, O'Driscoll, Martin, Mawman, Deborah, Proops, David, Craddock, Louise, Fielden, Claire, Graham, John, Meerton, Leah, Verschuur, Carl, Toner, Joseph, McAnallen, Cecilia, Osborne, Jonathan, Doran, Maire, Gray, Roger, Pickerill, Margaret
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 998
container_issue 5
container_start_page 988
container_title Otology & neurotology
container_volume 26
creator Ramsden, Richard
Greenham, Paula
O'Driscoll, Martin
Mawman, Deborah
Proops, David
Craddock, Louise
Fielden, Claire
Graham, John
Meerton, Leah
Verschuur, Carl
Toner, Joseph
McAnallen, Cecilia
Osborne, Jonathan
Doran, Maire
Gray, Roger
Pickerill, Margaret
description To evaluate the speech perception benefits of bilateral implantation for subjects who already have one implant. Repeated measures. Thirty adult cochlear implant users who received their second implant from 1 to 7 years with a mean of 3 years after their first device. Ages ranged from 29 to 82 years with a mean of 57 years. Tertiary referral centers across the United Kingdom. Monosyllabic consonant-nucleus-consonant words and City University of New York sentences in quiet with coincident speech and noise and with the noise spatially separated from the speech by +/-90 degrees . At 9 months, results showed the second ear in noise was 13.9 +/- 5.9% worse than the first ear (p < 0.001); a significant binaural advantage of 12.6 +/- 5.4% (p < 0.001) over the first ear alone for speech and noise from the front; a 21 +/- 6% (p < 0.001) binaural advantage over the first ear alone when noise was ipsilateral to the first ear; no binaural advantage when noise was contralateral to the first ear. There is a significant bilateral advantage of adding a second ear for this group. We were unable to predict when the second ear would be the better performing ear, and by implanting both ears, we guarantee implanting the better ear. Sequential implantation with long delays between ears has resulted in poor second ear performance for some subjects and has limited the degree of bilateral benefit that can be obtained by these users. The dual microphone does not provide equivalent benefit to bilateral implants.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/01.mao.0000185075.58199.22
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68565009</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68565009</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-9487853c6e391e0ed18dde80600c655e92c0916451cd0e6f5b0090cfd61c50f93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkD1PwzAQhj2AaCn8BWQxsCXcJbUTs6GqfEiVWGDFcpyLmsppSmyD-u8JtIhbbnmf904PY9cIKYIqbgHTzvQpjIOlgEKkokSl0iw7YVMUOSYFZmrCzr3fjJEiF8UZm6BEgfm8nLL35adx0YS23_K-4VXrTKDBOLfnbbdzZhuo5qaOLnAfqw3Z4PlXG9Y8rIlvo3UUPc_m3PZ27cgMfxT3ex-ou2CnjXGeLo97xt4elq-Lp2T18vi8uF8lNsciJGpeFqXIraRcIQHVWNY1lSABrBSCVGZBoZwLtDWQbEQFoMA2tUQroFH5jN0cendD_xHJB9213pIbX6E-ei1LIcXIjMG7Q9AOvfcDNXo3tJ0Z9hpB_xjVgHo0qv-N6l-jOstG-Op4JVYd1f_oUWf-DUx-dZ8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68565009</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of bilaterally implanted adult subjects with the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Ramsden, Richard ; Greenham, Paula ; O'Driscoll, Martin ; Mawman, Deborah ; Proops, David ; Craddock, Louise ; Fielden, Claire ; Graham, John ; Meerton, Leah ; Verschuur, Carl ; Toner, Joseph ; McAnallen, Cecilia ; Osborne, Jonathan ; Doran, Maire ; Gray, Roger ; Pickerill, Margaret</creator><creatorcontrib>Ramsden, Richard ; Greenham, Paula ; O'Driscoll, Martin ; Mawman, Deborah ; Proops, David ; Craddock, Louise ; Fielden, Claire ; Graham, John ; Meerton, Leah ; Verschuur, Carl ; Toner, Joseph ; McAnallen, Cecilia ; Osborne, Jonathan ; Doran, Maire ; Gray, Roger ; Pickerill, Margaret</creatorcontrib><description>To evaluate the speech perception benefits of bilateral implantation for subjects who already have one implant. Repeated measures. Thirty adult cochlear implant users who received their second implant from 1 to 7 years with a mean of 3 years after their first device. Ages ranged from 29 to 82 years with a mean of 57 years. Tertiary referral centers across the United Kingdom. Monosyllabic consonant-nucleus-consonant words and City University of New York sentences in quiet with coincident speech and noise and with the noise spatially separated from the speech by +/-90 degrees . At 9 months, results showed the second ear in noise was 13.9 +/- 5.9% worse than the first ear (p &lt; 0.001); a significant binaural advantage of 12.6 +/- 5.4% (p &lt; 0.001) over the first ear alone for speech and noise from the front; a 21 +/- 6% (p &lt; 0.001) binaural advantage over the first ear alone when noise was ipsilateral to the first ear; no binaural advantage when noise was contralateral to the first ear. There is a significant bilateral advantage of adding a second ear for this group. We were unable to predict when the second ear would be the better performing ear, and by implanting both ears, we guarantee implanting the better ear. Sequential implantation with long delays between ears has resulted in poor second ear performance for some subjects and has limited the degree of bilateral benefit that can be obtained by these users. The dual microphone does not provide equivalent benefit to bilateral implants.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1531-7129</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/01.mao.0000185075.58199.22</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16151348</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Cochlear Implantation ; Cochlear Implants ; Deafness - rehabilitation ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Speech Discrimination Tests ; Speech Perception ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Otology &amp; neurotology, 2005-09, Vol.26 (5), p.988-998</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-9487853c6e391e0ed18dde80600c655e92c0916451cd0e6f5b0090cfd61c50f93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-9487853c6e391e0ed18dde80600c655e92c0916451cd0e6f5b0090cfd61c50f93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27929,27930</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16151348$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ramsden, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greenham, Paula</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Driscoll, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mawman, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Proops, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Craddock, Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fielden, Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graham, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meerton, Leah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verschuur, Carl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toner, Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McAnallen, Cecilia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osborne, Jonathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doran, Maire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gray, Roger</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pickerill, Margaret</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of bilaterally implanted adult subjects with the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system</title><title>Otology &amp; neurotology</title><addtitle>Otol Neurotol</addtitle><description>To evaluate the speech perception benefits of bilateral implantation for subjects who already have one implant. Repeated measures. Thirty adult cochlear implant users who received their second implant from 1 to 7 years with a mean of 3 years after their first device. Ages ranged from 29 to 82 years with a mean of 57 years. Tertiary referral centers across the United Kingdom. Monosyllabic consonant-nucleus-consonant words and City University of New York sentences in quiet with coincident speech and noise and with the noise spatially separated from the speech by +/-90 degrees . At 9 months, results showed the second ear in noise was 13.9 +/- 5.9% worse than the first ear (p &lt; 0.001); a significant binaural advantage of 12.6 +/- 5.4% (p &lt; 0.001) over the first ear alone for speech and noise from the front; a 21 +/- 6% (p &lt; 0.001) binaural advantage over the first ear alone when noise was ipsilateral to the first ear; no binaural advantage when noise was contralateral to the first ear. There is a significant bilateral advantage of adding a second ear for this group. We were unable to predict when the second ear would be the better performing ear, and by implanting both ears, we guarantee implanting the better ear. Sequential implantation with long delays between ears has resulted in poor second ear performance for some subjects and has limited the degree of bilateral benefit that can be obtained by these users. The dual microphone does not provide equivalent benefit to bilateral implants.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Cochlear Implantation</subject><subject>Cochlear Implants</subject><subject>Deafness - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Speech Discrimination Tests</subject><subject>Speech Perception</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1531-7129</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkD1PwzAQhj2AaCn8BWQxsCXcJbUTs6GqfEiVWGDFcpyLmsppSmyD-u8JtIhbbnmf904PY9cIKYIqbgHTzvQpjIOlgEKkokSl0iw7YVMUOSYFZmrCzr3fjJEiF8UZm6BEgfm8nLL35adx0YS23_K-4VXrTKDBOLfnbbdzZhuo5qaOLnAfqw3Z4PlXG9Y8rIlvo3UUPc_m3PZ27cgMfxT3ex-ou2CnjXGeLo97xt4elq-Lp2T18vi8uF8lNsciJGpeFqXIraRcIQHVWNY1lSABrBSCVGZBoZwLtDWQbEQFoMA2tUQroFH5jN0cendD_xHJB9213pIbX6E-ei1LIcXIjMG7Q9AOvfcDNXo3tJ0Z9hpB_xjVgHo0qv-N6l-jOstG-Op4JVYd1f_oUWf-DUx-dZ8</recordid><startdate>200509</startdate><enddate>200509</enddate><creator>Ramsden, Richard</creator><creator>Greenham, Paula</creator><creator>O'Driscoll, Martin</creator><creator>Mawman, Deborah</creator><creator>Proops, David</creator><creator>Craddock, Louise</creator><creator>Fielden, Claire</creator><creator>Graham, John</creator><creator>Meerton, Leah</creator><creator>Verschuur, Carl</creator><creator>Toner, Joseph</creator><creator>McAnallen, Cecilia</creator><creator>Osborne, Jonathan</creator><creator>Doran, Maire</creator><creator>Gray, Roger</creator><creator>Pickerill, Margaret</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>8BM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200509</creationdate><title>Evaluation of bilaterally implanted adult subjects with the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system</title><author>Ramsden, Richard ; Greenham, Paula ; O'Driscoll, Martin ; Mawman, Deborah ; Proops, David ; Craddock, Louise ; Fielden, Claire ; Graham, John ; Meerton, Leah ; Verschuur, Carl ; Toner, Joseph ; McAnallen, Cecilia ; Osborne, Jonathan ; Doran, Maire ; Gray, Roger ; Pickerill, Margaret</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-9487853c6e391e0ed18dde80600c655e92c0916451cd0e6f5b0090cfd61c50f93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Cochlear Implantation</topic><topic>Cochlear Implants</topic><topic>Deafness - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Speech Discrimination Tests</topic><topic>Speech Perception</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ramsden, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greenham, Paula</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Driscoll, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mawman, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Proops, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Craddock, Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fielden, Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graham, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meerton, Leah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verschuur, Carl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toner, Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McAnallen, Cecilia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osborne, Jonathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doran, Maire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gray, Roger</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pickerill, Margaret</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><jtitle>Otology &amp; neurotology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ramsden, Richard</au><au>Greenham, Paula</au><au>O'Driscoll, Martin</au><au>Mawman, Deborah</au><au>Proops, David</au><au>Craddock, Louise</au><au>Fielden, Claire</au><au>Graham, John</au><au>Meerton, Leah</au><au>Verschuur, Carl</au><au>Toner, Joseph</au><au>McAnallen, Cecilia</au><au>Osborne, Jonathan</au><au>Doran, Maire</au><au>Gray, Roger</au><au>Pickerill, Margaret</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of bilaterally implanted adult subjects with the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system</atitle><jtitle>Otology &amp; neurotology</jtitle><addtitle>Otol Neurotol</addtitle><date>2005-09</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>988</spage><epage>998</epage><pages>988-998</pages><issn>1531-7129</issn><abstract>To evaluate the speech perception benefits of bilateral implantation for subjects who already have one implant. Repeated measures. Thirty adult cochlear implant users who received their second implant from 1 to 7 years with a mean of 3 years after their first device. Ages ranged from 29 to 82 years with a mean of 57 years. Tertiary referral centers across the United Kingdom. Monosyllabic consonant-nucleus-consonant words and City University of New York sentences in quiet with coincident speech and noise and with the noise spatially separated from the speech by +/-90 degrees . At 9 months, results showed the second ear in noise was 13.9 +/- 5.9% worse than the first ear (p &lt; 0.001); a significant binaural advantage of 12.6 +/- 5.4% (p &lt; 0.001) over the first ear alone for speech and noise from the front; a 21 +/- 6% (p &lt; 0.001) binaural advantage over the first ear alone when noise was ipsilateral to the first ear; no binaural advantage when noise was contralateral to the first ear. There is a significant bilateral advantage of adding a second ear for this group. We were unable to predict when the second ear would be the better performing ear, and by implanting both ears, we guarantee implanting the better ear. Sequential implantation with long delays between ears has resulted in poor second ear performance for some subjects and has limited the degree of bilateral benefit that can be obtained by these users. The dual microphone does not provide equivalent benefit to bilateral implants.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>16151348</pmid><doi>10.1097/01.mao.0000185075.58199.22</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1531-7129
ispartof Otology & neurotology, 2005-09, Vol.26 (5), p.988-998
issn 1531-7129
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68565009
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cochlear Implantation
Cochlear Implants
Deafness - rehabilitation
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Speech Discrimination Tests
Speech Perception
Treatment Outcome
title Evaluation of bilaterally implanted adult subjects with the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-13T21%3A16%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20bilaterally%20implanted%20adult%20subjects%20with%20the%20nucleus%2024%20cochlear%20implant%20system&rft.jtitle=Otology%20&%20neurotology&rft.au=Ramsden,%20Richard&rft.date=2005-09&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=988&rft.epage=998&rft.pages=988-998&rft.issn=1531-7129&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/01.mao.0000185075.58199.22&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68565009%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68565009&rft_id=info:pmid/16151348&rfr_iscdi=true