We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Directional Microphone Contralateral Routing of Signals in Cochlear Implant Users: A Within-Subjects Comparison.
Ear and Hearing 2017 May
OBJECTIVES: For medical or financial reasons, bilateral cochlear implantation is not always possible in bilaterally deafened patients. In such cases, a contralateral routing of signals (CROS) device could complement the monaural implant. The goal of our study was to compare the benefit of three different conditions: (1) unilateral cochlear implant (CI) alone, (2) unilateral CI complemented with a directional CROS microphone, and (3) bilateral CIs.
DESIGN: Twelve bilateral experienced CI users were tested. Speech reception in noise and sound localization were measured in the three above-mentioned conditions. Patients evaluated which condition they presumed to be activated and the subjective benefit on a hearing scale.
RESULTS: Compared with the unilateral CI condition, the additional CROS device provided significantly better speech intelligibility in noise when speech signals came from the front or side of the CROS microphone. Only small subjective improvement was observed. Bilateral-activated CIs further improved the hearing performance. This was the only condition where sound localization was possible. Subjective evaluation showed a clear preference for the bilateral CI treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: In bilateral deafened patients, bilateral implantation is the most preferable form of treatment. However, patients with one implant only could benefit from an additional directional microphone CROS device.
DESIGN: Twelve bilateral experienced CI users were tested. Speech reception in noise and sound localization were measured in the three above-mentioned conditions. Patients evaluated which condition they presumed to be activated and the subjective benefit on a hearing scale.
RESULTS: Compared with the unilateral CI condition, the additional CROS device provided significantly better speech intelligibility in noise when speech signals came from the front or side of the CROS microphone. Only small subjective improvement was observed. Bilateral-activated CIs further improved the hearing performance. This was the only condition where sound localization was possible. Subjective evaluation showed a clear preference for the bilateral CI treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: In bilateral deafened patients, bilateral implantation is the most preferable form of treatment. However, patients with one implant only could benefit from an additional directional microphone CROS device.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app