AJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


American Journal of Audiology Vol.13 193-199 December 2004. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2004/024)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tyler, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by Dunn, C. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tyler, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by Dunn, C. C.

Trade-Offs Between Better Hearing and Better Cosmetics

Richard S. Tyler 1, Shelley A. Witt 1, and Camille C. Dunn 1

1 University of Iowa, Iowa City

rich-tyler{at}uiowa.edu

A case study is reported of an adult bilateral cochlear implant patient who owns both a pair of ear-level and body-worn speech processors and chooses to wear them in unique configurations, knowingly compromising his auditory performance. The aim was to determine if differences in hearing could be quantified between these devices and to examine the size of these effects that would lend themselves to trading between performance and cosmetics. The patient reported wearing bilateral ear-level speech processors (programmed with the Cochlear Corporation spectral PEAK [SPEAK] coding strategy) 75% of the time for cosmetic and convenience reasons even though he "heard the best" with bilateral body-worn speech processors (programmed with the Cochlear Corporation advanced combination encoder strategy [ACE]). Speech perception and localization tests confirmed that this patient performed significantly better on monosyllabic phonemes in quiet (a difference from 60% to 75%) and localization (a total root-meansquared- error difference from 22° to 12°) with bilateral body-worn speech processors and consistently rated various speech sounds as more clear than with bilateral ear-level units. There was a 2-dB difference in sentence reception threshold in noise, which was not statistically significant. These results suggest that clinicians should consider and provide options to patients when there are trade-offs to be made regarding understanding performance and cosmetics. Some individuals may choose better speech perception over cosmetics, and the ability to choose might result in greater compliance. The observations made here are relevant to hearing aid users as well.

Key Words: cochlear implant, localization, speech perception, cosmetics

Submitted on February 3, 2004
Revised on June 17, 2004
Accepted on October 13, 2004







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.