October 2003 article states CI equals HA with 90db PTA loss.

deafdude1

New Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
1,268
Reaction score
0
Elsevier

Objective: The monosyllable speech perception ability after years of educational intervention was compared between prelingually deafened pediatric hearing aid users and their cochlear implant counterparts. Design: An open-set monosyllabic speech perception test was conducted on all subjects. The test required subjects to indicate a corresponding Japanese character to that spoken by the examiner. Fifty-two subjects with prelingual hearing impairment (47 hearing aid users and 5 cochlear implant users) were examined. Results: Hearing aid users with average pure-tone thresholds less than 90 dB HL demonstrated generally better monosyllable perception than 70%, which was equivalent or better performance than that of the cochlear implant group. Widely dispersed speech perception was observed within the 90–99 dB HL hearing-aid user group with most subjects demonstrating less than 50% speech perception. In the cluster of >100 dB HL, few cases demonstrated more than 50% in speech perception. The perception ability of the vowel part of each mora within the cochlear implant group was 100% and corresponding to that of hearing aid users with moderate and severe hearing loss. Conclusion: Hearing ability among cochlear implant users can be comparable with that of hearing aid users with average unaided pure-tone thresholds of 90 dB HL, after monosyllabic speech perception testing was performed.

Ive been doing my research on comparing CI vs. HA and I found this! I will keep looking for more articles that compare the two. But from what ive researched, CI today usually gives better hearing than what HAs can give for a profound loss. But CI appears to match the performance of HAs for a severe loss.

I also learned that those with severe losses generally score at least 70% speech on a difficult monosyllable test. I will do more research on speech scores for different degrees of hearing loss. But that article does show that those with profound losses generally scored below 50%. It's that group who with CI could hear comparable to those with severe losses and HAs. Speech would improve from perhaps 40% to perhaps 80% which is significent.
 
Very interesting find. I may be able to use this paper in my research to improve cochlear implants and hearing aids. I'm pretty sure the Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences at Arizona State University have already improved the cochlear implant to perform better than what is stated on that paper, but I'll discuss and compare results if I meet with them later.

Thanks for the link!
 
Technology has come FAR since 2003. VERY FAR. Use up to date data in order to be taken seriously.
 
Elsevier

Objective: The monosyllable speech perception ability after years of educational intervention was compared between prelingually deafened pediatric hearing aid users and their cochlear implant counterparts. Design: An open-set monosyllabic speech perception test was conducted on all subjects. The test required subjects to indicate a corresponding Japanese character to that spoken by the examiner. Fifty-two subjects with prelingual hearing impairment (47 hearing aid users and 5 cochlear implant users) were examined. Results: Hearing aid users with average pure-tone thresholds less than 90 dB HL demonstrated generally better monosyllable perception than 70%, which was equivalent or better performance than that of the cochlear implant group. Widely dispersed speech perception was observed within the 90–99 dB HL hearing-aid user group with most subjects demonstrating less than 50% speech perception. In the cluster of >100 dB HL, few cases demonstrated more than 50% in speech perception. The perception ability of the vowel part of each mora within the cochlear implant group was 100% and corresponding to that of hearing aid users with moderate and severe hearing loss. Conclusion: Hearing ability among cochlear implant users can be comparable with that of hearing aid users with average unaided pure-tone thresholds of 90 dB HL, after monosyllabic speech perception testing was performed.

Ive been doing my research on comparing CI vs. HA and I found this! I will keep looking for more articles that compare the two. But from what ive researched, CI today usually gives better hearing than what HAs can give for a profound loss. But CI appears to match the performance of HAs for a severe loss.

I also learned that those with severe losses generally score at least 70% speech on a difficult monosyllable test. I will do more research on speech scores for different degrees of hearing loss. But that article does show that those with profound losses generally scored below 50%. It's that group who with CI could hear comparable to those with severe losses and HAs. Speech would improve from perhaps 40% to perhaps 80% which is significent.

It only says less than 90 db loss, they could have a 20db loss, not a severe loss. So you conclusion is not based in fact.

And it says that they generally scored better, not that they all scored better.

When were the kids implanted? How long had the had the CI? What age were they implanted?
 
How about this link? It came from your same site.

Elsevier

"Results: Open-set speech recognition averaged 21.4% before implantation, and 83.6% after 1 year's cochlear implant experience. All children demonstrated an open-set score over 60% after 12 months of CI use. MAIS test scores averaged 18.1/40 before implantation and 35.1/40 after 9 months of CI use. MUSS test scores averaged 24.4/40 before implantation and 34.1/40 after 9 months of CI use. Conclusions: Cochlear implantation should be considered for prelingually hearing impaired children demonstrating marginal benefit from hearing aids, with a speech recognition score less than 30% on open set materials, in order to improve their speech discrimination skills."
 
I agree with Jenny. The face that its 2003 is ridic its almost 2010...and technology has improved vastly since then..
 
I found more!

Speech and musical perception in cochlear implant

Results: The aided pure-tone hearing thresholds of the hearing aid users were better at low frequencies. In contrast, the cochlear implant group’s thresholds were better at high frequencies. with a statistically significant difference at 250 and 6000 Hz.. The hearing aid users had similar scores to the normal hearing group in vowel identification and pattern perception. In addition, the hearing aid group performed better than did the cochlear implant group in vowel identification, pattern perception, and daily sentences tasks (P = .001, P = .02, P = .0001, respectively). No significant differences were found between the hearing aid and cochlear implant groups in multi-syllabic, phonetically balanced words, and consonant identification tasks. Although similar performances were obtained for three groups in music perception tasks, there was a positive and significant correlation was found between pattern perception and rhythmic perception ability of the cochlear implant group, whereas the hearing aid group, who had better performance in multisyllabic word discrimination, also performed better in tonal and rhythmic tasks.
My comments: Hearing aids are great, no need to say any more!


2009-05_02-07.jpg

FIGURE 3. Advances in technology and signal processing in cochlear implants have resulted in improved performance outcomes over time. Shown are group mean percent correct scores for CUNY and HINT sentences in quiet, and for CNC monosyllabic words. Source: Internal data from Cochlear Americas clinical trials.
My comments: CI performance improvement has peaked and leveled off since the early 2000s. Future technologies won't even be CI based as CI has physical limitations due to physics and principle.

Results of Pediatric Cochlear Implantation Compared with Results Obtained with Hearing Aids

Profoundly deaf children with 110db HL and 22% speech improved to 72% speech after CI and they hear with CI comparable to those with a severe hearing loss(70-85db) younger children did better with CI, the performance of children implanted between age 2 and 4 was equivalent to the mean performance of children with hearing loss of 70-85 dB wearing hearing aids.

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg -- Communication Abilities of Children With Aided Residual Hearing: Comparison With Cochlear Implant Users, May 2004, Eisenberg et al. 130 (5): 563

Comprehensive study that demonstrates medium-gain HAs with only 40db gain was able to match the average CI result except in HINT+5 where HAs were significantly ahead!
The average HA was 78db PTA unaided, 38db aided. For CI it was 110db HL aided down to 36db.

My comments: With a 110db HL, even high-gain HAs with 70db gain would aid you down to only 40db. Speech scores with such a profound loss would be far below the scores of CI and those with severe losses because there's extensive cochlear dead regions associated with a 110db loss. Also the surviving hair cells would be of very low quality and contribute little to acoustic information.

1256018431065533300.jpg


My comments: The HI group had only 55db PTA HL while the NH group had 5db PTA HL. Properly amplified, a moderate HL(60db max) which involves only the OHC and not IHC can give you near normal hearing except in the most challenging situations. Even with a channel simulator, the NH and HI did far better than CI. CIs do a great job in quiet but not so well in noise. It should be known that CIs aren't a cure and they won't give you anywhere near normal hearing, but they can be great for the profoundly deaf.
 
that was a SMALL group to test on considering how many people wear CI's and hearing aids...
 
that was a SMALL group to test on considering how many people wear CI's and hearing aids...

I will keep researching additional studies. I have to say that I am impressed that CI can match someone with a severe HL(only 80db HL) wearing HAs. Different studies show slightly different levels of HL that are comparable to CIs. I do have to point out that CIs aren't a cure nor do they come close to normal hearing for those who still think CI is a cure.
 
Back
Top