Objectives: The goal of this study was to create and validate a new set of sentence lists that could be used to evaluate the speech perception abilities of hearing-impaired listeners and cochlear implant (CI) users. Our intention was to generate a large number of sentence lists with an equivalent level of difficulty for the evaluation of performance over time and across conditions. Design: The AzBio sentence corpus includes 1000 sentences recorded from two female and two male talkers. The mean intelligibility of each sentence was estimated by processing each sentence through a five-channel CI simulation and calculating the mean percent correct score achieved by 15 normal-hearing listeners. Sentences from each talker were sorted by percent correct score, and 165 sentences were selected from each talker and were then sequentially assigned to 33 lists, each containing 20 sentences (5 sentences from each talker). List equivalency was validated by presenting all lists, in random order, to 15 CI users. Results: Using sentence scores from the CI simulation study produced 33 lists of sentences with a mean score of 85% correct. The results of the validation study with CI users revealed no significant differences in percent correct scores for 29 of the 33 sentence lists. However, individual listeners demonstrated considerable variability in performance on the 29 lists. The binomial distribution model was used to account for the inherent variability observed in the lists. This model was also used to generate 95% confidence intervals for one and two list comparisons. A retrospective analysis of 172 instances where research subjects had been tested on two lists within a single condition revealed that 94% of results were accurately contained within these confidence intervals. Conclusions: The use of a five-channel CI simulation to estimate the intelligibility of individual sentences allowed for the creation of a large number of sentence lists with an equivalent level of difficulty. The results of the validation procedure with CI users found that 29 of 33 lists allowed scores that were not statistically different. However, individual listeners demonstrated considerable variability in performance across lists. This variability was accurately described by the binomial distribution model and was used to estimate the magnitude of change required to achieve statistical significance when comparing scores from one and two lists per condition. Fifteen sentence lists have been included in the AzBio Sentence Test for use in the clinical evaluation of hearing-impaired listeners and CI users. An additional eight sentence lists have been included in the Minimum Speech Test Battery to be distributed by the CI manufacturers for the evaluation of CI candidates.

Objective: To determine, for patients who had identical levels of performance on a monosyllabic word test presented in quiet, whether device differences would affect performance when tested with other materials and in other test conditions. Design: For Experiment 1, from a test population of 76 patients, three groups (N = 13 in each group) were created. Patients in the first group used the CII Bionic Ear behind-the-ear (BTE) speech processor, patients in the second group used the Esprit3G BTE speech processor, and patients in the third group used the Tempo+ BTE speech processor. The patients in each group were matched on (i) monosyllabic word scores in quiet, (ii) age at testing, (iii) duration of deafness, and (iv) experience with their device. Performance of the three groups was compared on a battery of tests of speech understanding, voice discrimination, and melody recognition. In Experiments 2 (N = 10) and 3 (N = 10) the effects of increasing input dynamic range in the 3G and CII devices, respectively, was assessed with sentence material presented at conversational levels in quiet, conversational levels in noise, and soft levels in quiet. Results: Experiment 1 revealed that patients fit with the CII processor achieved higher scores than Esprit3G and Tempo+ patients on tests of vowel recognition. CII and Tempo+ patients achieved higher scores than Esprit3G patients on difficult sentence material presented in noise at +10 and +5 dB SNR. CII patients achieved higher scores than Esprit3G patients on difficult sentence material presented at a soft level (54 dB SPL). Experiment 2 revealed that increasing input dynamic range in the Esprit3G device had (i) no effect at conversational levels in quiet, (ii) degraded performance in noise, and (iii) improved performance at soft levels. Experiment 3 revealed that increasing input dynamic range in the CII device improved performance in all conditions. Conclusions: Differences in implant design can affect patient performance, especially in difficult listening situations. Input dynamic range and the method by which compression is implemented appear to be the major factors that account for our results.

Objectives: Patients with a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and a hearing aid in the other ear commonly achieve the highest speech-understanding scores when they have access to both electrically and acoustically stimulated information. At issue in this study was whether a measure of auditory function in the hearing aided ear would predict the benefit to speech understanding when the information from the aided ear was added to the information from the CI. Design: The subjects were 22 bimodal listeners with a CI in one ear and low-frequency acoustic hearing in the nonimplanted ear. The subjects were divided into two groups—one with mild-to-moderate low-frequency loss and one with severe-to-profound loss. Measures of auditory function included (1) audiometric thresholds at 750 Hz or lower, (2) speech-understanding scores (words in quiet and sentences in noise), and (3) spectral-modulation detection (SMD) thresholds. In the SMD task, one stimulus was a flat spectrum noise and the other was a noise with sinusoidal modulations at 1.0 peak/octave. Results: Significant correlations were found among all three measures of auditory function and the benefit to speech understanding when the acoustic and electric stimulation were combined. Benefit was significantly correlated with audiometric thresholds (r = −0.814), acoustic speech understanding (r = 0.635), and SMD thresholds (r = −0.895) in the hearing aided ear. However, only the SMD threshold was significantly correlated with benefit within the group with mild-to-moderate loss (r = −0.828) and within the group with severe-to-profound loss (r = −0.896). Conclusions: The SMD threshold at 1 cycle/octave has the potential to provide clinicians with information relevant to the question of whether an ear with low-frequency hearing is likely to add to the intelligibility of speech provided by a CI.

Objectives: The goal of this study was to create and validate a new set of sentence lists that could be used to evaluate the speech-perception abilities of listeners with hearing loss in cases where adult materials are inappropriate due to difficulty level or content. The authors aimed to generate a large number of sentence lists with an equivalent level of difficulty for the evaluation of performance over time and across conditions. Design: The original Pediatric AzBio sentence corpus included 450 sentences recorded from one female talker. All sentences included in the corpus were successfully repeated by kindergarten and first-grade students with normal hearing. The mean intelligibility of each sentence was estimated by processing each sentence through a cochlear implant simulation and calculating the mean percent correct score achieved by 15 normal-hearing listeners. After sorting sentences by mean percent correct scores, 320 sentences were assigned to 16 lists of equivalent difficulty. List equivalency was then validated by presenting all sentence lists, in a novel random order, to adults and children with hearing loss. A final-validation stage examined single-list comparisons from adult and pediatric listeners tested in research or clinical settings. Results: The results of the simulation study allowed for the creation of 16 lists of 20 sentences. The average intelligibility of each list ranged from 78.4 to 78.7%. List equivalency was then validated, when the results of 16 adult cochlear implant users and 9 pediatric hearing aid and cochlear implant users revealed no significant differences across lists. The binomial distribution model was used to account for the inherent variability observed in the lists. This model was also used to generate 95% confidence intervals for one and two list comparisons. A retrospective analysis of 361 instances from 78 adult cochlear implant users and 48 instances from 36 pediatric cochlear implant users revealed that the 95% confidence intervals derived from the model captured 94% of all responses (385 of 409). Conclusions: The cochlear implant simulation was shown to be an effective method for estimating the intelligibility of individual sentences for use in the evaluation of cochlear implant users. Furthermore, the method used for constructing equivalent sentence lists and estimating the inherent variability of the materials has also been validated. Thus, the AzBio Pediatric Sentence Lists are equivalent and appropriate for the assessment of speech-understanding abilities of children with hearing loss as well as adults for whom performance on AzBio sentences is near the floor.

Purpose: To determine why, in a pilot study, only 1 of 11 cochlear implant listeners was able to reliably identify a frequency-to-electrode map where the intervals of a familiar melody were played on the correct musical scale. The authors sought to validate their method and to assess the effect of pitch strength on musical scale recognition in normal-hearing listeners.Method: Musical notes were generated as either sine waves or spectrally shaped noise bands, with a center frequency equal to that of a desired note and symmetrical (log-scale) reduction in amplitude away from the center frequency. The rate of amplitude reduction was manipulated to vary pitch strength of the notes and to simulate different degrees of current spread. The effect of the simulated degree of current spread was assessed on tasks of musical tuning/scaling, melody recognition, and frequency discrimination.Results: Normal-hearing listeners could accurately and reliably identify the appropriate musical scale when stimuli were sine waves or steeply sloping noise bands. Simulating greater current spread degraded performance on all tasks.Conclusions: Cochlear implant listeners with an auditory memory of a familiar melody could likely identify an appropriate frequency-to-electrode map but only in cases where the pitch strength of the electrically produced notes is very high.