不同策略的声电双模式助听对事件相关电位的影响

目的 探讨听障儿童单侧耳植入人工耳蜗(cochlear implant,CI)后对侧耳联合使用助听器(hearing aid,HA)的双模式助听策略对事件相关电位P300的影响.方法 研究对象共52人,设实验组(人工耳蜗植入儿童)3组、听力正常对照组1组,每组13人,按实验设计步骤随机测试.按对侧耳配戴HA的不同将人工耳蜗植入儿童分为A(CI+模拟HA)、B(CI+数字HA,未优化)和C(CI+数字HA,优化)3组,评估实验对象术后左右耳的残余听力,分别设置和优化CI及HA的技术参数并在声场中评估其助听后的音频感知情况,测试并比较各组的P300潜伏期及振幅.结果 3组患者术后双耳均有残余听力,助听后组间比较无差别(P>0.05).P300潜伏期比较A组>B组>C组(P<0.05),A、B两组P300潜伏期比对照组延长(P<0.05),C组与对照组比较无差别(P>0.05);P300振幅A组和B组与对照组比较均无意义(P>0.05),C组P300振幅低于对照组(P<0.05).结论 大部分听障儿童一侧耳植入人工耳蜗后对侧耳仍有可利用的残余听力,可以联合配戴适合的全数字编程助听器,大脑听觉中枢可以整合声电双模式助听设备上传的听觉信息.     

人工耳蜗植入后对侧耳是否联合使用助听器声调识别的对比研究

目的 探讨人工耳蜗植入后对侧耳联合使用助听器对声调识别的影响;同时探讨人工耳蜗开机时间、康复训练时间、听障儿童的学习能力等因素对声调识别的影响。 方法 选择3~7岁的人工耳蜗植入儿童27例,采用《言语听觉反应评估》(EARS)中的“封闭式声调测试”作为测试材料,分别单独使用人工耳蜗(CI)和在人工耳蜗对侧耳联合使用助听器(CIHA)在安静和噪声两种环境下进行声调识别的测试,使用SPSS 17.0对测试结果进行统计学分析。 结果 无论在安静环境还是噪声环境下,CIHA的声调测试成绩均优于CI,此优势在噪声环境下更明显;人工耳蜗开机时间、康复训练时间较长者声调测试成绩均优于较短者;听障儿童的希-内学习能力测试结果学习能力DIQ≥100与DIQ<100者声调测试成绩差异无统计学意义。 结论 建议听障儿童人工耳蜗植入后对侧耳联合使用助听器,但助听器需要优化和调整。     

人工耳蜗与助听器对儿童听觉言语能力提升的对比研究

目的：探讨植入人工耳蜗儿童和配戴助听器儿童在语音识别、声调识别及语音清晰度上是否存在差异,以期为助听器及人工耳蜗术后康复提供参考依据。方法选取55名听障儿童,其中助听器组25名,人工耳蜗组30名;采用听觉语言能力评估词表进行评估;利用SPSS 16.0对评估结果进行统计分析。结果听障儿童的韵母识别率显著高于声母识别率(t=3.505,P=0.001);助听器组韵母识别率显著高于声母识别率（t=3.672,P=0.001）;人工耳蜗组韵母识别率与声母识别率无显著性差异（t=1.517,P=0.135）;人工耳蜗组的声母识别显著高于助听器组（t=3.508,P=0.01）;两组儿童的韵母识别、双音节词声调识别及语音清晰度之间无显著差异(均P>0.05);人工耳蜗组和助听器组的语音清晰度变异系数均大于20%,离散程度较大。结论听障儿童的康复教学应重视声母识别训练,同时关注个体之间的差异。     

对侧助听器对人工耳蜗使用者言语感知贡献研究

目的探讨讲汉语普通话的人工耳蜗(Cochlear Implantation,以下简称CI)使用者对侧佩戴助听器(Hearing Aid,以下简称HA)的获益。方法:选取对侧使用HA的14名母语为汉语普通话的CI使用者,分别测试其在使用CI和CI+HA(即双模式)两种助听模式下的声调、双音节词、及句子的识别表现,并分析助听器耳残余听力对双模式言语表现的影响。结果:安静环境下使用CI和CI+HA模式下的声调识别率分别为67.6%±10.5%、71.6%±12.5%,双音节词识别率分别为72.3%±21.8%、74.2%±23.3%,句子识别率分别为62.3%±28.3%、61.8%±31.3%,噪声环境句子识别率分别为37.6%±36.5%、42.4%±35.9%。统计分析发现声调识别表现在CI+HA模式下显著优于CI模式(t=-2.285,P=0.04),其余言语识别表现在两种聆听模式下均无显著差异;且1000Hz及以下频率的助听器耳残余听力与CI+HA模式下言语识别表现显著相关。结论::对于"大龄"语前聋患者,一侧人工耳蜗植入联合对侧助听器的双模式应用,需考虑助听器耳的残余听力情况,极重度感音神经性聋助听器辅助效果有限,必要时需考虑双侧人工耳蜗植入。     

不同助听模式下儿童言语康复效果分析

目的 探讨不同助听模式下儿童言语康复效果.方法 44例听障儿童按助听模式分为助听器(hearing aid,HA)组(HA组)14例,单侧人工耳蜗植入(cochlear implantation,CI)组(CI组)21例,双耳双模式组(CI+HA组)9例,分别于康复训练前、训练6、12、18、24个月后采用听障儿童语言...     

对侧使用助听器对人工耳蜗植入儿童句子识别能力的影响

目的：探讨安静环境和噪声环境下，人工耳蜗植入儿童在电声双模式(对侧使用助听器)和电模式(对侧不使用助听器)助听下的句子识别率差异。方法在安静环境和噪声环境中，分别对12例人工耳蜗植入儿童进行句子识别率测试，比较两种助听模式之间的识别率差异。结果在安静环境中，电声双模式助听的人工耳蜗植入儿童句子识别率为77.7%±15.0%，电模式助听下的句子识别率为73.0%±17.2%，两者之间差异显著(P<0.05)；在噪声环境中，电声双模式助听下的句子识别率为60.8%±24.5%，电模式助听下的句子识别率为54.8%±19.7%，两者之间差异显著(P<0.05)。结论在安静环境和噪声环境中，电声双模式助听的句子识别率均高于电模式助听的句子识别率。     

人工耳蜗和助听器同时使用的听觉事件相关电位研究

目的探讨人工耳蜗和助听器同时使用者的听觉事件相关电位(ERP)的变化,对人工耳蜗和助听器同时使用所产生的2耳听效果进行客观评价。方法分别在同时使用人工耳蜗和助听器(CI&HA)及单独使用人工耳蜗(CI)两种状态下测定ERP的主要成分P300、N200和N100的潜伏期及P300振幅。结果CI&HA时P300的平均潜伏期为(388.96±62.61)ms,N200为(267.00±45.43)ms,N100为(94.58±9.10)ms,P300平均振幅为(13.69±3.26)μV;CI时P300的平均潜伏期为(412.08±54.32)ms,N200为(289.21±37.40)ms,N100为(99.38±13.15)ms,P300平均振幅为(12.23±2.97)μV。P300平均潜伏期和N200平均潜伏期在CI&HA时较CI时缩短,差异有统计学意义。结论2耳同时使用声音处理方式完全不同的人工耳蜗和助听器,中枢处理过程并不拮抗,能够得到2耳听效果。     

双模式助听儿童的皮层听觉诱发电位特征研究北大核心CSCD

目的探讨人工耳蜗及助听器(hearing aids,HA)双模式助听与单独人工耳蜗植入(cochlear implant,CI)患者皮层听觉诱发电位(cortical auditory evoked potential,CAEP)中P1及失匹配负波(mismatch negativity,MMN)的分化特征,对双模式助听效果进行客观评价。方法双模式助听儿童7例(双模式使用时长均不少于6个月),在CI与助听器达到最佳助听模式后,分别在双模式及单侧CI两种助听模式下,以/ba1/、/ba4/(即/ba/一声和四声)作为标准刺激与偏差刺激声进行声场下CAEP测试,分析两种模式下P1波和MMN的潜伏期与幅值的差异。结果双模式助听下CAEP的P1的潜伏期、幅值以及MMN的潜伏期、幅值分别为159.29±31.80 ms、1.86±3.12μV、245.29±58.82 ms、-2.16±1.34μV;单侧CI助听时分别为172.00±43.84 ms、1.26±2.85μV、288.29±54.00 ms、-1.63±1.19μV。双模式助听下P1及MMN潜伏期较单侧助听CI时显著缩短(P<0.05),P1及MMN幅值较单侧CI时呈现增大趋势,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论CI及助听器双模式助听下CAEP的P1及MMN潜伏期较单侧CI助听时显著缩短,提示双模式助听下患者听觉辨别能力提高。     

双侧人工耳蜗植入术后言语识别效果的评估

目的评估双侧人工耳蜗植入者汉语普通话短句、双音节词单音节词及汉语声调的识别效果,探索双侧人工耳蜗植入者双耳听觉产生的机制及对言语识别率的影响。方法选取双侧人工耳蜗植入患者6人,自制问卷收集受试者的基本信息并评估他们的主观听觉状况。首先测试受试者在使用双侧人工耳蜗（BCI）、单独使用一侧人工耳蜗（RCI/LCI）的听阈,随后测试他们在BCI和RCI/LCI两种听觉模式下的七音节短句、双音节词、声调、韵母、声母识别率,测试背景环境包括安静环境和嘈杂语噪声环境,言语信号强度为65dB SPL,固定信噪比为+10 dB SPL。随后将BCI和RCI/LCI两种听觉模式下的识别效果进行比较。结果除噪声状态下韵母识别测试中其余测试结果均为BCI言语识别率得分高于RCI/LCI。结论对于符合双侧人工耳蜗植入术适应证标准的患者而言,双侧植入人工耳蜗可以在不同程度上提高安静和噪声环境下的短句、双字词、声母、韵母及声调的识别率,降低其声场听阈。     

植入人工耳蜗与配戴助听器儿童背景噪声下的声调识别

目的 探讨植入人工耳蜗与配戴助听器儿童在声调识别方面是否存在差异,分析背景噪声对听障儿童声调识别的影响.了解在噪声环境中听障儿童声调识别的特点.方法 采用2X4两因素混合实验设计,比较植入人工耳蜗与配戴助听器儿童在不同信噪比条件下(SNR=+12,+6,0 dB)的声调识别能力;采用单因素方差分析,比较不同声调组合识别对听障儿童的难易程度.结果 ①在重建或补偿听阈相似时,植入人工耳蜗与配戴助听器儿童声调识别能力的差异不显著;②在不同信噪比条件下,两组儿童声调识别能力的差异极其显著;③两组儿童均最易分辨一声与四声的差异,最难分辨二声与三声的差异.结论 只要重建或补偿听阈在最适范围,听障儿童便具有一定的声调识别能力,但噪声会对其产生极大的影响.     

有低频残余听力感音神经聋的人工耳蜗植入术

目的介绍一种有低频残余听力感音神经聋的人工耳蜗植入技术,探讨人工耳蜗植入手术对有残余听力患者的治疗效果和价值。方法15例有残余听力的患者接受了保护残余听力的人工耳蜗植入手术。术中电极植入深度在19mm～24mm左右。术后分别检测单纯使用助听器、单纯使用人工耳蜗、人工耳蜗结合助听器三种不同状态下的听力。结果15例患者中,有13例术后残余听力保存良好,仅分别丢失5～20dB听力,但另2例术后残余听力全部丧失。术后在安静、信噪比15dB和10dB三种不同状态下的言语测试结果显示,人工耳蜗结合助听器使用者测试得分始终保持在很高水平;单纯使用人工耳蜗者也有较好的成绩,但在信噪比达10dB的条件下,测试成绩下降;而单纯使用助听器者,不仅在安静状态下听力成绩不甚理想,一旦加入竞争性噪声,听力测试成绩急剧下降。结论保护和利用残余听力的人工耳蜗植入技术,使人工耳蜗植入手术对象从重度或极重度聋扩大到高频为重度或极重度聋,低频（≤500Hz）为中、轻度聋的患者。接受这项技术患者的听力和言语识别能力均明显优于其单纯配戴助听器和单纯使用人工耳蜗时的听力和言语识别能力。     

1-year postactivation results for sequentially implanted bilateral cochlear implant users.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate speech recognition in quiet and in noise for a group of 12 children, all of whom underwent sequential bilateral cochlear implantation at various ages (range, 1 yr, 8 mo to 9 yr, 6 mo at time of second implant). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Outpatient cochlear implant clinic. PATIENTS: Children who underwent sequential bilateral cochlear implantation. INTERVENTION: Rehabilitative. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Speech recognition in quiet was evaluated for each ear separately using single-word speech recognition assessments (Multisyllabic Lexical Neighborhood Test and Early Speech Perception Test) via recorded presentation. Speech recognition in noise was assessed for each ear separately and in the bilateral condition by obtaining a spondee recognition threshold in the presence of speech-weighted noise presented at 45 dB hearing level. The primary outcome measure for speech recognition in noise assessment was the signal-to-noise ratio for 50% performance, which was calculated by determining the difference between the presentation level of the noise and the presentation level at which the speech recognition threshold was obtained. The results of these assessments were contrasted between children receiving their second cochlear implant before 4 years of age and children receiving their second cochlear implant after 4 years of age. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference for speech recognition scores in quiet was obtained between the early-implanted ear and the late-implanted ears for children receiving their second cochlear implant after 4 years of age. There was not a statistically significant difference in speech recognition scores in quiet between the early-implanted and late-implanted ears of children receiving their second cochlear before 4 years of age. Both groups of children possessed better speech recognition scores in noise (statistically significant at an alpha = 0.05) in the bilateral condition relative to either unilateral condition. However, there was not a statistically significant relationship between speech recognition performance in noise and the duration of deafness of the later implanted ear. CONCLUSION: Bilateral cochlear implantation allowed for better speech recognition in noise relative to unilateral performance for a group of 12 children who underwent sequential bilateral cochlear implantation at various ages. There was not a statistically significant relationship between speech recognition in noise benefit, which was defined as the difference in performance between the first implanted ear and the bilateral condition and the age at which the second implant was received. Children receiving bilateral cochlear implants younger than 4 years of age achieved better speech recognition in quiet performance for the later implanted ear as compared with children receiving their second cochlear implant after 4 year of age.     

Residual hearing conservation and electroacoustic stimulation with the nucleus 24 contour advance cochlear implant.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the conservation of residual hearing in recipients of the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance cochlear implant (CI) and the benefits of combined electrical and acoustic stimulation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multicenter study. SETTING: CI clinics in Western Europe. PATIENTS: Adult candidates for conventional cochlear implantation with a minimum preoperative word recognition score of 10% in the ear to be implanted. INTERVENTION: "Soft-surgery" protocol, including a 1- to 1.2-mm anterior and inferior cochleostomy hole with the electrode array, inserted 17 mm using the "advance-off-stylet" technique. Patients with postoperative pure-tone hearing threshold levels (HTLs) of 80 dB hearing loss or less at 125 and 250 Hz and 90 dB hearing loss or less at 500 Hz were refitted with an in-the-ear hearing aid for combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic (El-Ac) stimulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A questionnaire to collect information regarding surgery. Pure-tone HTLs measured at intervals. Word recognition tested in quiet and sentence recognition tested in noise at 10 and 5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). HEARING CONSERVATION RESULTS: HTL data were available for 27 patients. HTLs were conserved within 20 dB of preoperative levels for 33, 26, and 19% of patients for 125, 250, and 500 Hz, respectively. However, the recommended soft-surgery protocol was strictly followed in only 12 of 27 patients. For these 12 patients, hearing thresholds were conserved within 20 dB for 50, 50, and 33% of patients. Median threshold increases were 40 dB (range, 250-500 Hz) for the whole group and 23 dB for the strict surgery group. Ten patients retained sufficient HTLs to enter the El-Ac user group. SPEECH RECOGNITION RESULTS: Group mean recognition scores for nine El-Ac users for words presented at 65 dB sound pressure level were 45% for CI alone and 55% for CI + ipsilateral hearing aid (p < 0.05, paired t). For sentences presented in noise at 5 dB SNR, mean word scores were 46% CI alone and 56% CI + ipsilateral hearing aid (p < 0.01, paired t). CONCLUSION: Hearing was conserved for conventional candidates for cochlear implantation where the recommended soft-surgery protocol was strictly adhered. Combined ipsilateral electrical and acoustic stimulation provided considerable benefits for speech recognition in noise, equivalent to between 3 and 5 dB SNR, compared with CI alone.     

Speech perception with a cochlear implant used in conjunction with a hearing aid in the opposite ear

The aim of this study was to determine the improvement in speech recognition provided by a cochlear implant (CI) in conjunction with a hearing aid (HA) in the opposite ear. The study was a retrospective cohort study in the context of a university teaching hospital CI programme. Seven CI patients who still use their HA in the opposite ear were tested. The scores with the CI alone and the CI in conjunction with an HA were evaluated by using three speech perception tests in quiet (Freiburger Numbers, Freiburger Monosyllables, and Innsbrucker Sentence Test). In the majority of tests and subjects, the CI alone performed better than the HA alone, and the bimodal (CI+HA) condition was superior to the CI alone. On the sentence test, the patients as a group improved from 47-96% (mean: 79%; CI alone) to 50-100% (mean: 88.1%; CI+HA, pv<0.05). With the more difficult monosyllable test, the scores improved from 15-52% (mean: 37.2%; CI alone) to 15-82% (mean: 48.7%; CI+ HA, p<0.05). On the numbers test, scores increased from 65-98% (mean: 83%; CI alone) to 75-98% (mean: 88.7%; CI+ HA, p<0.05). All patients in this study were implanted in the poorer ear. The results of the present study suggest the advantage of CI usage in conjunction with an HA in the opposite ear.     

Speech perception with a cochlear implant used in conjunction with a hearing aid in the opposite ear

The aim of this study was to determine the improvement in speech recognition provided by a cochlear implant (CI) in conjunction with a hearing aid (HA) in the opposite ear. The study was a retrospective cohort study in the context of a university teaching hospital CI programme. Seven CI patients who still use their HA in the opposite ear were tested. The scores with the CI alone and the CI in conjunction with an HA were evaluated by using three speech perception tests in quiet (Freiburger Numbers. Freiburger Monosyllables, and Innsbrucker Sentence Test). In the majority of tests and subjects. the CI alone performed better than the HA alone, and the bimodal (CI + HA) condition was superior to the CI alone. On the sentence test, the patients as a group improved from 47 96% (mean: 79%; CI alone) to 50-100% (mean: 88.1%; CI + HA, pv < 0.05). With the more difficult monosyllable test, the scores improved from 15-52% (mean: 37.2%; CI alone) to 15 82% (mean: 48.7%; CI + HA, p < 0.05). On the numbers test. scores increased from 65-98% (mean: 83%; CI alone) to 75-98% (mean: 88.7%; CI + HA, p < 0.05). All patients in this study were implanted in the poorer ear. The results of the present study suggest the advantage of CI usage in conjunction with an HA in the opposite ear.     

普通话单音节测听表在人工耳蜗植入者中的初步应用

目的采用新编普通话单音节测听表,评估人工耳蜗植入者的言语识别能力。方法选取8名语前聋儿童（甲组）及13名语后聋（乙组）人工耳蜗植入者作为研究对象,男12名,女9名。甲组植入年龄为1．6～11．9岁（中位数2．7岁）,使用年限〉3．4年。乙组植入年龄为3．2～30．9岁（中位数12．0岁）,使用年限〉0．7年以上。在声场中测试人工耳蜗日常使用状态下的啭音听阈,并55dB SPL言语强度下的单音节识别率。部分受试者还接受了65、80dB SPL言语强度下单音节识别率的测试。结果甲乙2组受试者的0．5、1、2、4kHz四频率平均（4 Frequency Average,4FA）声场啭音听阈分别为32．5±3．4dB HL、35．9±4．9dB HL,t检验显示P=0．1046。甲乙2组受试者55dB SPL下的单音节识别率分别为56．8±9．0％、31．41±7．1％,t检验显示P=0．001。结论新编普通话单音节测听表,可有效地用来评价人工耳蜗植入者的言语识别能力。使用年限较短的语后聋患者的单音节识别率尚不及使用年限较长的语前聋儿童。人工耳蜗植入者的单音节识别率一言语声强（Performance—Intensity,P—I）函数曲线较正常成人平均右移30dB以上,提示人工耳蜗使用者的言语听力补偿水平较正常人仍有差距。     

Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears.

This study aimed to (a) investigate the effect of using a hearing aid in conjunction with a cochlear implant in opposite ears on speech perception in quiet and in noise, (b) identify the speech information obtained from a hearing aid that is additive to the information obtained from a cochlear implant, and (c) explore the relationship between aided thresholds in the nonimplanted ear and speech perception benefit from wearing a hearing aid in conjunction with a cochlear implant in opposite ears.Fourteen adults who used the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system in 1 ear participated in the study. All participants had either used a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear for at least 75% of waking hours after cochlear implantation, and/or, hearing loss less than 90 dB HL in the low frequencies in the nonimplanted ear. Speech perception was evaluated in 3 conditions: cochlear implant alone (CI), hearing aid alone (HA), and cochlear implant in conjunction with hearing aid in opposite ears (CIHA). Three speech perception tests were used: consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant (CNC) words in quiet, City University of New York style (CUNY) sentences in coincident signal and noise, and spondees in coincidental and spatially separated signal and noise. Information transmission analyses were performed on the CNC responses.Of the 14 participants tested, 6 showed significant bimodal benefit on open-set speech perception measures and 5 showed benefit on close-set spondees. However, 2 participants showed poorer speech perception with CIHA than CI in at least 1 of the speech perception tests. Results of information transmission analyses showed that bimodal benefit (performance with CIHA minus that with CI) in quiet arises from improved perception of the low frequency components in speech. Results showed that participants with poorer aided thresholds in the mid-to-high frequencies demonstrated greater bimodal benefit. It is possible that the mid-to-high frequency information provided by the hearing aids may be conflicting with the cochlear implants.     

Hearing benefits of second-side cochlear implantation in two groups of children

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the additional bilateral benefits of a second cochlear implant (CI) in a group of young children (<6 years of age) and a group of older children (>6 years of age). METHOD: This is a Belgian tertiary multi-centre study in which 33 CI-children with a second implant between the age of 2 and 12 participated. Assessments took place pre-second implant and at several time intervals post-fitting on pure tone audiometry and speech recognition in quiet and noise (+10 dBSNR). Testing was done with the first and second implant alone and bilaterally. Results were analysed separately for children younger and older than 6 years at the time of implantation of the 2nd CI. RESULTS: After 18 months of bilateral implant use all children obtained significantly higher hearing thresholds in the bilateral condition in comparison to both the unilateral conditions (p(CI1)=0.035/p(CI2)=0.042 for the younger children and p(CI1)=0.021/p(CI2)=0.007 for the older children). The speech recognition scores in quiet were for all children superior in the bilateral condition (p(CI2)=0.011 for the younger children and p(CI1)=0.016/p(CI2)=0.003 for the older children). In the noisy condition only significant bilateral better results were obtained in the group of younger children (p(CI1)=0.028/p(CI2)=0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral cochlear implantation offers advantages to all children. Even for the children who received a second implant after the age of 6 a progress is determined after 18 months. However, the data appear to show a beneficial performance for those children who received their second implant before the age of 6, especially in the more challenging conditions.