¹ßÇ¥Çü½Ä :
|
Á¢¼ö¹øÈ£ - 890052 OTOP-36 |
Sound Localization and Speech Perception in Noise of Pediatric
Cochlear Implant Recipients Bimodal Fitting Versus Bilateral
Cochlear Implants |
Dept. of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan Univ., School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea |
Il Joon MOON,
Heesung PARK, Sunhwa JIN, Eun Yeon KIM, Won-Ho CHUNG, Yang-Sun CHO, Sung Hwa HONG
|
¸ñÀû: This study aimed to compare binaural advantage for auditory
localization and
speech perception in noise of children with bimodal fitting or
bilateral
cochlear implantation (CI). ¹æ¹ý:Ten subjects with bimodal fitting and seven subjects with
bilateral
cochlear implantation were recruited. Mean duration of hearing
aid use in
bimodal fitting group was 8.1 (+1.9) years. Sound localization
test and
hearing in noise test were performed with a 13-loudspeaker array
(from
-90 to +90). Mean correct response rate and error degree were
calculated
for each patient. For hearing in noise test, speech reception
scores were
measured for target speech in front (0), and babble noise in
front,
distributed asymmetrically toward the right (+90) or left (-90),
or
symmetrically toward the right and left (+90/-90). For evaluation
of
subjective benefit, the Speech, Spatial, and Quality
questionnaire (SSQ)
were also administered. °á°ú:Mean correct response rate and error degree with bilateral implants and
bimodal fitting were 15.4% and 39.5, and 13.8% and 35.4, respectively. In
noise from the front, mean speech reception scores were 47.8% and 51.0% in
bilateral implant and bimodal fitting groups, respectively. When noise was
presented toward bilateral side, mean speech reception scores were 39.3% and
41.3% in bilateral implant and bimodal fitting groups, respectively. SSQ
scores were also comparable between the two groups. Of note, mean error
degrees were significantly decreased when second CI was turned on or hearing
aids was put on as compared with conditions only using unilateral CI in both
groups. °á·Ð:No significant differences were found between the two groups in
terms of
sound localization and speech recognition in noise as well as
subjective
benefit in everyday life. |
|