1 / 25

EVALUATION OF THE BENEFITS OF FM SYSTEMS IN COCHLEAR IMPLANTS AND HEARING AID USERS

Universidad de La Laguna. Gobierno de Canarias Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deportes. Barajas , J.J. (3) , Mora, R. (2) , Fernández, R. (1) , De Lucas, G. (1) Zenker, F. (1).

micheal
Download Presentation

EVALUATION OF THE BENEFITS OF FM SYSTEMS IN COCHLEAR IMPLANTS AND HEARING AID USERS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Universidad de La Laguna Gobierno de Canarias Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deportes Barajas , J.J. (3), Mora, R. (2), Fernández, R. (1), De Lucas, G. (1) Zenker, F. (1) • Clínica Barajas (2) Fundación Canaria Dr. Barajas para la Prevención e Investigación de la Sordera (3) Universidad de la Laguna • SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE - CANARY ISLANDS - SPAIN EVALUATION OF THE BENEFITS OF FM SYSTEMS IN COCHLEAR IMPLANTS AND HEARING AID USERS 1 st Conference EHDI August 13-14 Johannesburg - South Africa

  2. Gobierno de Canarias Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deportes CANARIAS FM PROJECT CLASSROOM ACOUSTICS • BackgroundNoise (BN). • Reverberation Time (RT). • SpeechAudibilityIndex (SAI). FREQUENCY MODULATED SYSTEMS • Selection of Candidates • FM Fitting and Verification

  3. AVERAGE CLASSROOM (N=24) WIDTH: 6,31 m LENGTH: 9,78 m HEIGHT: 3,03 m

  4. MEAN REVERBERATION TIME (N=24) UNE en ISO 3382 (2001) “Acoustic measurements of the reverberation time of rooms with referent to other. Acoustical parameters” (1997)

  5. MEAN BACKGROUND NOISE (N=24) NOISE RATING CURVES (NRC) Noise Rating Curves (NRC) - ISO

  6. CLASSROOMS ACOUSTIC N=24 SPEECH AUDIBILITY INDEX (SAI): 52% PSR = 90 % PSR = 48 % % Predicted Speech Recognition (PSR) Hearing Impaired Normal Hearing % Speech Audibility Index (SAI)

  7. FM SYSTEM TRANSMITTER RECEIVER

  8. SUBJECTS (n = 23) n=16 RANGE OF AGE: 5 – 14 YEARS HEARING AID (n = 9) UNILATERAL COCHLEAR IMPLANT (n = 7) UNILATERAL (n = 2) BILATERAL (n = 7)

  9. SpeechDiscrimination Test High Frequency Words Examples: Vaca- casa peluche- cepillo LEXICAL FREQUENCY (% of correctphonemesrecognition) Low Frequency Words Examples: Bufón- bizón, flácida- tímpano

  10. PROCEDURESpeech Discrimination Test WITHOUT FM WITH FM QUIET ☺ ☺ NOISE ☺ ☺

  11. TEST CONDITION

  12. ☺ FREQUENTLY WORDSWITH FM AND BACKGROUND NOISE CLASSROOM ACOUSTIC BNICRA = 65 dBA RT60 = 1,28 mseg SNR = 7 dB SAI = 52% HEARING CORRECTION FM = Phonak Campus + Micro Link HA= Phonak Supero 412

  13. ☺ INFREQUENTLY WORDSWITHOUT FM AND BACKGROUND NOISE CLASSROOM ACOUSTIC BNICRA = 65 dBA RT60 = 1,28 mseg SNR = 7 dB SAI = 52% HEARING CORRECTION FM = Phonak Campus + Micro Link HA= Phonak Supero 412

  14. RESULTS

  15. BOX PLOT OF % PHONEMES RECOGNITION

  16. MAIN EFFECTS FM HEARING CORRECTION

  17. MAIN EFFECTS LEXICAL FREQUENCY BACKGROUND NOISE

  18. INTERACTIONS FM X BACKGROUND NOISE FM X LEXICAL FREQUENCY

  19. FM BENEFIT Dot Diagram > 85 % Sens: 62,5 Spec: 60,3 % SCORE PHONEMES RECOGNITION WITH FM WITHOUT FM

  20. FM BENEFIT: WORDS Receiving Operation Curves (ROC)

  21. CONCLUSIONS The lexical infrequent words in noise conditions subtest may be use as a selection criteria for establish FM candidates

More Related