[Audiologic diagnosis in children. Applicability of different speech material]

[Dichotic speech recognition with cochlear implants]

BACKGROUND

Dichotic speech recognition of side-separated speech stimuli requires their central nervous processing and has been used since the 1950s in a variety of clinical settings.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate the dichotic speech recognition of normal-hearing (NH) subjects, cochlear implant (CI) recipients with single-sided deafness (SSD), and bilateral CI (BilCI) recipients with the dichotic discrimination test according to Feldmann.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The speech recognition of ten adult NH subjects, ten SSD CI recipients, and ten BilCI recipients was determined at 65 dB SPL or 65 dB SPL equivalent for monotic presentation of trisyllabic nouns of the Feldmann test (NH subjects: better ear, poorer ear; SSD CI recipients: NH ear, CI; BilCI recipients: better CI, poorer CI) and for dichotic, i.e., simultaneous side-separated, presentation.

RESULTS

The NH subjects showed significantly poorer speech recognition for dichotic presentation than for monotic presentation. Speech recognition of SSD CI recipients was significantly worse with the CI than with the NH ear for both monotic and dichotic presentation. For both presentation conditions, BilCI recipients obtained significantly lower speech recognition with the poorer CI compared to the better CI. With each of the two CI, BilCI recipients had significantly worse speech recognition for dichotic presentation than for monotic presentation.

CONCLUSION

All three study groups-NH subjects, SSD CI recipients, and BilCI recipients-were able to recognize dichotically presented speech with both ears. For SSD CI recipients, there was no negative effect of the CI on speech recognition with the NH ear for dichotic presentation.

Current audiological diagnostics

Today's audiological functional diagnostics is based on a variety of hearing tests, whose large number takes account of the variety of malfunctions of a complex sensory organ system and the necessity to examine it in a differentiated manner and at any age of life. The objective is to identify nature and origin of the hearing loss and to quantify its extent as far as necessary to dispose of the information needed to initiate the adequate medical (conservative or operational) treatment or the provision with technical hearing aids or prostheses. Moreover, audiometry provides the basis for the assessment of impairment and handicap as well as for the calculation of the degree of disability. In the present overview, the current state of the method inventory available for practical use is described, starting from basic diagnostics over to complex special techniques. The presentation is systematically grouped in subjective procedures, based on psychoacoustic exploration, and objective methods, based on physical measurements: preliminary hearing tests, pure tone threshold, suprathreshold processing of sound intensity, directional hearing, speech understanding in quiet and in noise, dichotic hearing, tympanogram, acoustic reflex, otoacoustic emissions and auditory evoked potentials. Apart from a few still existing gaps, this method inventory covers the whole spectrum of all clinically relevant functional deficits of the auditory system.

[Verification of normative values for the Swiss version of the Freiburg speech intelligibility test]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In the Swiss version of the Freiburg speech intelligibility test five test words from the original German recording which are rarely used in Switzerland have been exchanged. Furthermore, differences in the transfer functions between headphone and loudspeaker presentation are not taken into account during calibration. New settings for the levels of the individual test words in the recommended recording and small changes in calibration procedures led us to make a verification of the currently used normative values.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Speech intelligibility was measured in 20 subjects with normal hearing using monosyllabic words and numbers via headphones and loudspeakers.

RESULTS

On average, 50% speech intelligibility was reached at levels which were 7.5 dB lower under free-field conditions than for headphone presentation. The average difference between numbers and monosyllabic words was found to be 9.6 dB, which is considerably lower than the 14 dB of the current normative curves.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a good agreement between our measurements and the normative values for tests using monosyllabic words and headphones, but not for numbers or free-field measurements.