The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cochlear Implantation With Hearing Preservation Yields Significant Benefit for Speech Recognition in Complex Listening Environments
Open accessAbstract
In Brief Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the benefit of having preserved acoustic hearing in the implanted ear for speech recognition in complex listening environments. Design: The present study included a within-subjects, repeated-measures design including 21 English-speaking and 17 Polish-speaking cochlear implant (CI) recipients with preserved acoustic hearing in the implanted ear. The patients were implanted with electrodes that varied in insertion depth from 10 to 31 mm. Mean preoperative low-frequency thresholds (average of 125, 250, and 500 Hz) in the implanted ear were 39.3 and 23.4 dB HL for the English- and Polish-speaking participants, respectively. In one condition, speech perception was assessed in an eight-loudspeaker environment in which the speech signals were presented from one loudspeaker and restaurant noise was presented from all loudspeakers. In another condition, the signals were presented in a simulation of a reverberant environment with a reverberation time of 0.6 sec. The response measures included speech reception thresholds (SRTs) and percent correct sentence understanding for two test conditions: CI plus low-frequency hearing in the contralateral ear (bimodal condition) and CI plus low-frequency hearing in both ears (best-aided condition). A subset of six English-speaking listeners were also assessed on measures of interaural time difference thresholds for a 250-Hz signal. Results: Small, but significant, improvements in performance (1.7–2.1 dB and 6–10 percentage points) were found for the best-aided condition versus the bimodal condition. Postoperative thresholds in the implanted ear were correlated with the degree of electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS) benefit for speech recognition in diffuse noise. There was no reliable relationship among measures of audiometric threshold in the implanted ear nor elevation in threshold after surgery and improvement in speech understanding in reverberation. There was a significant correlation between interaural time difference threshold at 250 Hz and EAS-related benefit for the adaptive speech reception threshold. Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that (1) preserved low-frequency hearing improves speech understanding for CI recipients, (2) testing in complex listening environments, in which binaural timing cues differ for signal and noise, may best demonstrate the value of having two ears with low-frequency acoustic hearing, and (3) preservation of binaural timing cues, although poorer than observed for individuals with normal hearing, is possible after unilateral cochlear implantation with hearing preservation and is associated with EAS benefit. The results of this study demonstrate significant communicative benefit for hearing preservation in the implanted ear and provide support for the expansion of CI criteria to include individuals with low-frequency thresholds in even the normal to near-normal range. One of the newest advances of cochlear implantation is the preservation or conservation of acoustic hearing in the implanted ear following surgical insertion of the electrode array. This project evaluated the benefit of having acoustic hearing from two partially hearing ears vs. one partially hearing ear–as in the case of bimodal listening–for speech recognition in complex listening conditions including (1) highlevel diffuse restaurant noise and (2) reverberation. The results demonstrate significant communicative benefit for hearing preservation in the implanted ear and provide support for the expansion of cochlear implant criteria to include individuals with low-frequency thresholds in even the normal to near-normal range.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Nilsson, M., Soli, S. D., & Sullivan, J. A. (1994) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.408469 · Cited by 2,078
Speech-Discrimination Scores Modeled as a Binomial Variable
Thornton, A. R., & Raffin, M. J. M. (1978) · Journal of Speech and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/jshr.2103.507 · Cited by 544
Pupil Response as an Indication of Effortful Listening: The Influence of Sentence Intelligibility
Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., & Festen, J. M. (2010) · Ear & Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e3181d4f251 · Cited by 437
Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., & Festen, J. M. (2011) · Ear & Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31820512bb · Cited by 432
Objective Measures of Listening Effort: Effects of Background Noise and Noise Reduction
Sarampalis, A., Kalluri, S., Edwards, B., & Hafter, E. (2009) · Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0111 · Cited by 422
Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing
Bronkhorst, A. W., & Plomp, R. (1992) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.404209 · Cited by 301
Subjective and Psychophysiological Indexes of Listening Effort in a Competing-Talker Task
Mackersie, C. L., & Cones, H. (2011) · Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · doi:10.3766/jaaa.22.2.6 · Cited by 172
Electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a multi-centre investigation
Gstoettner, W. K., Van de Heyning, P., Fitzgerald O'Connor, A., Morera, C., Sainz, M., Vermeire, K., McDonald, S., Cavallé, L., Helbig, S., García Valdecasas, J., et al. (2008) · Acta Oto-Laryngologica · doi:10.1080/00016480701805471 · Cited by 170
Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition
Dorman, M. F., & Gifford, R. H. (2010) · International Journal of Audiology · doi:10.3109/14992027.2010.509113 · Cited by 151
Self-citationTori of confusion: Binaural localization cues for sources within reach of a listener
Shinn‐Cunningham, B. G., Santarelli, S. G., & Kopčo, N. (2000) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.428447 · Cited by 144
Cited by
Wang, N. Y.-H., Wang, H.-L. S., Wang, T.-W., Fu, S.-W., Lu, X., Wang, H.-M., & Tsao, Y. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2020.3042655 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Gifford, R. H., Dorman, M. F., Skarzynski, H., Lorens, A., Polak, M., Driscoll, C. L. W., Roland, P., & Buchman, C. A.
- Venue
- Ear & Hearing
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 413-425
- ISSN
- 0196-0202 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2007412025
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 17
- FWCI
- 7.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cochlear Implantation With Hearing Preservation Yields Significant Benefit for Speech Recognition in Complex Listening Environments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aud.0b013e31827e8163
- The paper
- Gifford, R. H., Dorman, M. F., Skarzynski, H., Lorens, A., Polak, M., Driscoll, C. L. W., Roland, P., & Buchman, C. A. (2013). Cochlear Implantation With Hearing Preservation Yields Significant Benefit for Speech Recognition in Complex Listening Environments. Ear & Hearing. https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0b013e31827e8163
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.