Literature DB >> 10466569

Effects of electrode configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant.

Q J Fu1, R V Shannon.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to understand vowel recognition in cochlear implants as a function of the cochlear location and separation of the stimulated electrode pairs and as a function of the matching between speech spectral information and the location of the stimulated electrodes.
DESIGN: Four-electrode speech processors with a continuous interleaved sampling speech processing strategy were implemented through a custom interface in five subjects implanted with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. The temporal envelopes from four broad frequency bands were used to modulate 500 pps, 100 microsec/phase interleaved pulse trains delivered to four electrode pairs. Ten different frequency allocations and five sets of four-electrode configurations were tested. Each frequency allocation represented the same cochlear extent but different cochlear locations based on Greenwood's frequency-to-place formula. Recognition of multi-talker medial vowels was measured for each combination of parameters with no period of practice or adjustment.
RESULTS: Results showed that recognition of multi-talker vowels was highly dependent on frequency allocation for all electrode configurations. For a given electrode configuration maximum vowel recognition was observed with a specific frequency allocation. When the stimulated electrodes were shifted basally by 3 mm, the frequency allocation that produced the best performance also shifted basally by 3 mm. A similar pattern of vowel recognition was observed as a function of frequency allocation for electrode configurations that had the same apical-most electrode in each pair, regardless of location of the basal-most electrode in the pair. Subjects with different electrode insertion depths had similar trends in vowel recognition for each frequency allocation.
CONCLUSIONS: For a given electrode configuration, the best performance was obtained with processors with a specific frequency allocation. In addition, the apical-most member of each electrode pair had a much stronger influence on vowel recognition in electric hearing. Finally, results from this study also suggest that over time, patients with implants can partially adapt to a basal shift in place of stimulation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10466569     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199908000-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  23 in total

1.  Perceptual "vowel spaces" of cochlear implant users: implications for the study of auditory adaptation to spectral shift.

Authors:  J D Harnsberger; M A Svirsky; A R Kaiser; D B Pisoni; R Wright; T A Meyer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Using temporal modulation sensitivity to select stimulation sites for processor MAPs in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Soha N Garadat; Teresa A Zwolan; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2013-07-20       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Effects of stimulation mode, level and location on forward-masked excitation patterns in cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu; Robert V Shannon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-11-04

4.  Implications of deep electrode insertion on cochlear implant fitting.

Authors:  Mathieu Gani; Gregory Valentini; Alain Sigrist; Maria-Izabel Kós; Colette Boëx
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-01-11

5.  An electric frequency-to-place map for a cochlear implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Tony Spahr; Rene Gifford; Louise Loiselle; Sharon McKarns; Timothy Holden; Margaret Skinner; Charles Finley
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-03-10

6.  Plasticity in human pitch perception induced by tonotopically mismatched electro-acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  L A J Reiss; C W Turner; S A Karsten; B J Gantz
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2013-10-21       Impact factor: 3.590

7.  Considerations for design of future cochlear implant electrode arrays: electrode array stiffness, size, and depth of insertion.

Authors:  Stephen J Rebscher; Alexander Hetherington; Ben Bonham; Peter Wardrop; David Whinney; Patricia A Leake
Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev       Date:  2008

8.  A model of incomplete adaptation to a severely shifted frequency-to-electrode mapping by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Elad Sagi; Qian-Jie Fu; John J Galvin; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-09-23

9.  The process of spoken word recognition in the face of signal degradation.

Authors:  Ashley Farris-Trimble; Bob McMurray; Nicole Cigrand; J Bruce Tomblin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes.

Authors:  Charles C Finley; Timothy A Holden; Laura K Holden; Bruce R Whiting; Richard A Chole; Gail J Neely; Timothy E Hullar; Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.311

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.