双耳双模式助听儿童情感语调感知特征

目的探讨单侧人工耳蜗植入儿童对侧配戴助听器能否提升其情感语调识别能力,不同的情绪语调识别是否存在难度差异。方法选取35例(男15例,女20例)双耳双模式助听的重度、极重度感音神经性听力损失儿童,组内比较单侧人工耳蜗助听状态和双模式助听两种状态下儿童的情感语调识别特征。结果双耳双模式助听状态下听障儿童的语调得分极显著高于单侧人工耳蜗助听状态(P<0.01),识别率总体提升了16.65%。开心语调提升了20.59%,生气语调提升了19.21%,难过语调提升了13.23%。个体数据分析发现,有82.85%的儿童体现出双耳双模式优势。两种助听状态下,生气语调识别得分显著高于开心和难过(P<0.05),双耳双模式助听状态下,23.53%的儿童会将开心感知为难过语调,22.79%的儿童会将难过感知为开心语调。结论相比于单侧人工耳蜗植入,儿童通过双模式助听可以获得情感语调感知优势;两种助听模式下,生气语调的识别均比开心和难过容易,开心和难过语调容易混淆。频率变化可能是儿童感知情感语调的重要线索,提示在康复训练中应予以重视。     

双侧同期人工耳蜗植入儿童声源定位能力长期随访研究北大核心CSCD

目的本项研究评估双侧同期人工耳蜗植入声源定位能力是否好于单侧耳蜗植入;评估双侧同期人工耳蜗植入经过5年以上长期佩戴,其声源定位能力与正常听力儿童的区别。方法选取2007年接受双侧同期人工耳蜗植入的6例患者,根据年龄、性别、耳聋时间等配对选取6例术前未佩戴过助听器的单侧人工耳蜗植入者,还根据年龄选取正常听力对照组8例。采用单因素方差分析比较双侧同期人工耳蜗植入受试者双耳佩戴、分别左右侧佩戴状态下的水平方位声源定位能力差别。采用单因素方差分析比较双侧同期人工耳蜗植入、单侧人工耳蜗植入、正常听力儿童的声源定位能力差别。结果双侧同期人工耳蜗植入者双侧佩戴时角度偏差数值为38.73°±8.17°;仅左侧或右侧佩戴时角度偏差数值为78.46°～81.35°。双侧佩戴人工耳蜗声源定位能力要明显好于仅佩戴任一侧人工耳蜗,P<0.01。单侧人工耳蜗植入受试者的角度偏差数值为62.27°±8.72°。正常听力受试者角度偏差数值为5.82°±4.27°。正常听力受试者声源定位能力最好,双侧同期人工耳蜗组次之,单侧人工耳蜗组最差,差异有显著统计学意义,P<0.01。结论双侧同期人工耳蜗植入后,受试者声源定位能力明显好于单侧耳蜗植入。但由于耳蜗设备的局限性,其声源定位能力与正常儿童仍有很大的差距。     

声源定位测试的研究现状

综述听觉系统声源定位的机制及声源定位测试的研究现状。目前,听觉系统对于声音在双耳间形成的特定信号来辨识方向性的机制已研究得较成熟,但听觉中枢如何整合双耳间信号特性来定位的机制尚不明白。研究表明,大部分听障患者在经过听力干预后的声源定位能力都有不同程度的提高,但是使用双侧人工耳蜗或结合使用人工耳蜗和助听器的患者的声源定位能力较单侧使用耳蜗的患者好。     

学龄前听障儿童助听后言语流畅性的特征及影响因素

目的 分析学龄前听障儿童助听后言语流畅性的特征,探讨辅听装置、年龄、性别、语训时长对其言语流畅性的影响.方法 以109例3.5~6.5岁学龄前健听及听障儿童为研究对象,其中健听儿童30例(健听组),双耳佩戴助听器的听障儿童28例(助听器组),右耳植入人工耳蜗的听障儿童26例(人工耳蜗组),同时佩戴助听器和人工耳蜗双耳双模式助听的听障儿童25例(双模式组),通过主题对话的形式分别采集各组儿童的语音样本,比较各组儿童在自发性言语语言任务下的语速、停顿、重复和拖延差异;分析辅听装置、年龄、性别、语训时长等因素对听障儿童言语流畅性的影响.结果 ①健听组儿童的语速显著高于其他三组(P<0.05),健听组停顿次数显著低于人工耳蜗组(P=0.001)和双模式组(P=0.032);健听组拖延次数显著低于助听器组(P=0.001)和双模式组(P=0.001),极显著低于人工耳蜗组(P<0.001);②不同性别听障儿童语速、停顿、重复次数和拖延次数差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),而助听器组语速显著高于人工耳蜗组(P=0.045),人工耳蜗组停顿次数显著高于助听器组(P=0.028);3.5~5岁听障儿童语速显著低于5.1~6.5岁组(P=0.042);语训0~2.5年听障儿童语速显著低于语训>2.5年者(P=0.002),停顿及重复次数均高于语训>2.5年者(分别P=0.047,P=0.02).结论 听障儿童的语速低于健听儿童,停顿次数、拖延次数高于健听儿童;年龄、辅听装置、语训时长影响学龄前听障儿童的言语流畅性,性别影响不大.     

双耳双模式调试策略研究进展

和单侧人工耳蜗相比,双耳双模式助听优势已被广泛认可,但是如何调试能够使得双耳双模式优势最大化还未达成共识,因此本文通过梳理国外相关文献,结合我国国情,分别从频率响应(全频段放大、高频增益限制、移频)和响度平衡两方面探讨对于双耳双模式配戴的调试策略,并介绍了助听器和人工耳蜗联动技术进展,旨在为临床调试提供参考,促进相关研究的开展。     

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.     

学龄前健听与听障儿童言语韵律组块功能的比较

目的 比较不同助听方式听障儿童和健听儿童言语韵律组块功能的差异。方法 以58例5.5～6.5岁学龄前健听及听障儿童为研究对象，其中健听儿童30例，双侧人工耳蜗植入儿童10例，双侧助听器佩戴儿童8例，双侧分别佩戴助听器和人工耳蜗的双耳双模式助听的听障儿童10例，采用《儿童言语韵律功能评估工具》中组块评估部分比较其组块功能表现的差异及其输入与输出维度表现的相关性。结果 (1)听障儿童韵律组块四个板块得分均显著落后于健听儿童(P<0.05);(2)不同助听方式听障儿童中，韵律组块输入维度的两个板块得分差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);韵律组块输出维度的形式板块人工耳蜗植入组和双模式组的得分均显著低于助听器组(P<0.05),韵律组块输出维度的功能板块人工耳蜗植入组得分显著低于助听器组(P<0.05),其它各组得分差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);(3)各类儿童输入与输出两个维度的评估结果无显著相关性(P>0.05)。结论 听障儿童韵律组块输入和输出均落后于同龄健听儿童。不同助听方式影响听障儿童韵律组块输出的表现，对其输入的影响不大，整体表现为：人工耳蜗...     

佩戴助听器与人工耳蜗听障儿童交流能力的比较

此项研究比较了佩戴助听器和植入人工耳蜗的听障儿童的交流能力。研究对使用不同放大措施的听障儿童进行言语识别和语言评估，并对使用人工耳蜗的听障儿童进行了康复效果的纵向比较。评估实验组为39例佩戴助听器的儿童，裸耳纯音听阈平均为78．2dB HL，对照组为117例人工耳蜗植入术后的儿童，术前纯音听阈平     

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...     

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。     

The Effects of Microphone Spacing on Auditory Localization

The localization ability of 10 normally hearing adults was determined under varying microphone separations and varying sound source azimuths. The stimuli (white noise bursts) were prerecorded, after being transduced through 'body' hearing aids and then played to the subjects over headphones. Results indicated that there was an improvement in localization ability for all azimuth conditions when the microphones were spaced wider than 12.7 cm apart (15.2–30.5 cm). The smaller the separations (5.5–12.7 cm), the poorer the localization. Localization was always poorer at 30° azimuth (the smallest used) than at any of the other azimuths (0°, 30°, 60°, 90° right and left), regardless of microphone spacing. Implications are made about the relation of these findings to the use of binaural body aids on infants and young children.     

Auditory localization abilities in bilateral cochlear implant recipients.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify binaural advantage for auditory localization in the horizontal plane by bilateral cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Also, to determine whether the use of dual microphones with one implant improves localization. METHODS: Twenty subjects from the UK multicenter trial of bilateral cochlear implantation with Nucleus 24 K/M device were recruited. Sound localization was assessed in an anechoic room with an 11-loudspeaker array under four test conditions: right CI, left CI, binaural CI, and dual microphone. Two runs were undertaken for each of five stimuli (speech, tones, noise, transients, and reverberant speech). Order of conditions was counterbalanced across subjects. RESULTS: Mean localization error with bilateral implants was 24 degrees compared with 67 degrees for monaural implant and dual microphone conditions (chance performance is 65 degrees). Normal controls average 2 to 3 degrees in similar conditions. Binaural performance was significantly better than monaural performance for all subjects, for all stimulus types, and for different sound sources. Only small differences in performance with different stimuli were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral cochlear implantation with the Nucleus 24 device provides marked improvement in horizontal plane localization abilities compared with unilateral CI use for a range of stimuli having different spectral and temporal characteristics. Benefit was obtained by all subjects, for all stimulus types, and for all sound directions. However, binaural performance was still worse than that obtained by normal hearing listeners and hearing aid users with the same methodology. Monaural localization performance was at chance. There is no benefit for localization with dual microphones.     

Effect of homolateral and contralateral routing of signals through body-worn hearing aids on the localization ability of hearing-impaired people

This investigation compared the localization abilities in the horizontal plane of 22 hearing-impaired adults (9 with symmetrical conductive and 13 with symmetrical sensorineural hearing impairment) whilst listening to speech through body-worn hearing aids in two different ways: (a) hearing-aid microphone placed on the same side as the stimulated ear (homolateral routing of signals); (b) hearing aid microphone placed on the opposite side to the stimulated ear (contralateral routing of signals). It was found that the localization performances of all the subjects, especially when using binaural hearing aids, under homolateral routing of signals, were far superior to their respective localization performances achieved with contralateral routing of signals.     

Advantages of directional hearing aid microphones related to room acoustics.

In this study, two types of hearing aids were used. Both aids had the same frequency characteristics for frontal sound, but one employed an omnidirectional microphone and the other a directional microphone. The frequency characteristics of both hearing aids were measured for five azimuths on KEMAR and in situ in 12 normal-hearing subjects. For these subjects we also determined the speech reception threshold (SRT) with background noise in two rooms with different reverberation times. The direction of the speech stimuli was always frontal; the direction of the noise was varied. Additionally, directional hearing was measured with short noise bursts from eight loudspeakers surrounding the subject. In the less reverberant room, sounds coming from behind were less amplified by the hearing aid with the directional microphone than by the one with the omnidirectional microphone. In this room the monaural SRT values were largely determined by the level of the background noise. For the directional hearing aids there was an extra binaural advantage which depended on the direction of the background noise. Only for low-frequency noise bursts was directional hearing better with directional hearing aids. In the more reverberant room, no distinct differences between the frequency characteristics of the two hearing aid types were measured. However, a systematic difference between monaural SRT values measured through the two hearing aids was found. This difference was independent of noise azimuth. In conclusion, hearing aid(s) with a directional microphone showed no disadvantages and clear advantages under specific conditions.     

BAHA in children and adolescents with unilateral or bilateral conductive hearing loss: a study of outcome

OBJECTIVES: Bilateral BAHAs in adults with bilateral hearing loss (BHL) have proven to be superior to unilateral fitting, in both audiologically measurements and in overall patient satisfaction. There have been no similar studies in children. Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis of children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL) has shown numerous negative consequences. The objectives of the study were to investigate whether fitting of bilateral BAHAs in children with conductive BHL give additional hearing benefits, to investigate the effects of unilateral hearing aids in children with conductive UHL, and to identify different aspects of auditory problems in children with conductive UHL or BHL. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective study involving 22 children with either conductive UHL (unaided or with unilateral hearing aid) or conductive BHL (with unilateral or bilateral BAHAs) and 15 controls. METHODS: Baseline audiometry, tone thresholds in a sound field, speech recognition in noise and sound localization were tested without, and with unilateral and bilateral hearing aids. Two questionnaires, MAIS & MUSS and IOI-HA, were completed. RESULTS: Two problem areas were identified in the children with hearing impairment: in reactions to sounds and in intelligibility of speech. An additional BAHA in the children with BHL resulted in a tendency to have improved hearing in terms of better sound localization and speech recognition in noise. Fitting of unilateral hearing aids in the children with UHL gave some supplementary benefit in terms of better speech recognition in noise but no positive effect on ability to localize sound could be detected. Even so, all children fitted with hearing aids - either unilaterally or bilaterally - reported a positive outcome with their devices in the self-assessment questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Children with either UHL or BHL displayed several problems within the hearing domain. Fitting of bilateral BAHAs in children with BHL and of a single-sided hearing aid in children with UHL appears to have some supplementary audiological benefits and also renders high patient satisfaction. In order to investigate the possible supplementary effects of hearing aids, a 3-month trial of BAHA on Softband, either unilaterally or bilaterally, may be of value in children with conductive UHL or BHL, respectively.     

Recording and classification of the acoustic environment of hearing aid users

This article investigates the different acoustic signals that hearing aid users are exposed to in their everyday environment. Binaural microphone signals from recording positions close to the microphone locations of behind-the-ear hearing aids were recorded by 20 hearing aid users during daily life. The recorded signals were acoustically analyzed with regard to narrowband short-term level distributions. The subjects also performed subjective assessments of their own recordings in the laboratory using several questions from the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP) questionnaire. Both the questionnaire and the acoustic analysis data show that the importance, problems, and hearing aid benefit as well as the acoustic characteristics of the individual situations vary a lot across subjects. Therefore, in addition to a nonlinear hearing aid fitting, further signal classification and signal/situation-adaptive features are highly desirable inside modern hearing aids. These should be compatible with the variability of the individual sound environments of hearing-impaired listeners.     

Directional benefit in simulated classroom environments

PURPOSE: To examine speech recognition performance and subjective ratings for directional and omnidirectional microphone modes across a variety of simulated classroom environments. METHOD: Speech recognition was measured in a group of 26 children age 10-17 years in up to 8 listening environments. RESULTS: Significant directional benefit was found when the sound source(s) of interest was in front, and directional decrement was measured when the sound source of interest was behind the participants. Of considerable interest is that a directional decrement was observed in the absence of directional benefit when sources of interest were both in front of and behind the participants. In addition, limiting directional processing to the low frequencies eliminated both the directional deficit and the directional advantage. CONCLUSIONS: Although these data support the use of directional hearing aids in some noisy school environments, they also suggest that use of the directional mode should be limited to situations in which all talkers of interest are located in the front hemisphere. These results highlight the importance of appropriate switching between microphone modes in the school-age population.     

Auditory localization and its clinical applications

Factors of significance in the localization of sound are considered. The ability of hearing-impaired subjects to localize noise in the horizontal plane was examined with and without hearing aids, and also compared with the results for normally hearing subjects. The directional hearing was not found to be improved by the hearing aids used. The ability to localize sound has been used by several investigators as a diagnostic tool: poor directional hearing may be expected in patients with lesions of the cochlear nerve or the pontine region. However, other factors are also of significance and may impair the localization of sound. These problems are discussed.     

Hearing aid saturation and aided loudness discomfort.

Clinical measurements of the loudness discomfort level (LDL) are generally performed while the subject listens to a particular stimulus presented from an audiometer through headphones (AUD-HP). The assumption in clinical practice has been that the sound pressure level (SPL) corresponding to the sensation of loudness discomfort under AUD-HP conditions will be the same as the corresponding to LDL with the hearing aid. This assumption ignores the fact that the distortion produced by a saturating hearing aid could have an influence on the sensation of loudness. To examine these issues, 5 hearing-impaired subjects were each fit with four linear hearing aids, each having a different saturation sound pressure level (SSPL90). Probe-tube microphone measurements of ear canal SPL at LDL were made while the subjects listened to continuous discourse in quiet under aided and AUD-HP conditions. Also using continuous discourse, real-ear coherence measures were made at various output sound pressure levels near LDL. All four hearing aid types produced mean LDLs that were lower than those obtained under AUD-HP conditions. Those hearing aids with higher SSPL90 produced significantly higher LDLs than hearing aids with lower SSPL90. A significant negative correlation was found between real-ear SPL and real-ear coherence. Quality judgments made at LDL indicated that sound quality of hearing aids with higher SSPL90 was preferred to that of hearing aids with lower SSPL90. Possible fitting implications regarding the setting of SSPL90 from AUD-HP LDL measures are discussed.