A E Vandali1, L A Whitford, K L Plant, G M Clark. 1. The Cooperative Research Centre for Cochlear Implant, Speech and Hearing Research, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of varying electrical stimulation rate on speech comprehension by cochlear implant users, while keeping the number of stimulated channels constant. DESIGN: Three average rates of electrical stimulation, 250, 807, and 1615 pulses per second per channel (pps/ch), were compared using a speech processing strategy that employed an electrode selection technique similar to that used in the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor strategy (McDermott, McKay, & Vandali, 1992; McDermott & Vandali, Reference Note 1; McKay, McDermott, Vandali, & Clark, 1991) and the Spectral Peak strategy (Skinner et al., 1994; Whitford et al., 1995). Speech perception tests with five users of the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system were conducted over a 21-wk period. Subjects were given take-home experience with each rate condition. A repeated ABC evaluation protocol with alternating order was employed so as to account for learning effects and to minimize order effects. Perception of open-set monosyllabic words in quiet and open-set sentences at signal to noise ratios ranging from +20 to 0 dB, depending on the subject's ability, were tested. A comparative performance questionnaire was also administered. RESULTS: No statistical differences in group performance between the 250 and 807 pps/ch rates were observed in any of the speech perception tests. However, significantly poorer group performance was observed for the 1615 pps/ch rate for some tests due predominantly to the results of one subject. Analysis of individual scores showed considerable variation across subjects. For some subjects, one or more of the three rate conditions evaluated provided benefits on some speech perception tasks. The results of the comparative performance questionnaire indicated a preference for the 250 and 807 pps/ch rates over the 1615 pps/ch rate for most listening situations. CONCLUSIONS: For the speech processing strategy, implant system, and subjects evaluated in this study, the group results indicated that the use of electrical stimulation rates higher than 250 pps/ch (up to 1615 pps/ch) generally provided no significant improvement to speech comprehension. However, individual results indicated that perceptual benefits could be obtained by adjusting rate of stimulation optimally to suit each subject. Results from one subject, together with tinnitus problems arising from high-rate stimulation for another subject, indicated that high rates of stimulation may in fact be undesirable for some subjects.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of varying electrical stimulation rate on speech comprehension by cochlear implant users, while keeping the number of stimulated channels constant. DESIGN: Three average rates of electrical stimulation, 250, 807, and 1615 pulses per second per channel (pps/ch), were compared using a speech processing strategy that employed an electrode selection technique similar to that used in the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor strategy (McDermott, McKay, & Vandali, 1992; McDermott & Vandali, Reference Note 1; McKay, McDermott, Vandali, & Clark, 1991) and the Spectral Peak strategy (Skinner et al., 1994; Whitford et al., 1995). Speech perception tests with five users of the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system were conducted over a 21-wk period. Subjects were given take-home experience with each rate condition. A repeated ABC evaluation protocol with alternating order was employed so as to account for learning effects and to minimize order effects. Perception of open-set monosyllabic words in quiet and open-set sentences at signal to noise ratios ranging from +20 to 0 dB, depending on the subject's ability, were tested. A comparative performance questionnaire was also administered. RESULTS: No statistical differences in group performance between the 250 and 807 pps/ch rates were observed in any of the speech perception tests. However, significantly poorer group performance was observed for the 1615 pps/ch rate for some tests due predominantly to the results of one subject. Analysis of individual scores showed considerable variation across subjects. For some subjects, one or more of the three rate conditions evaluated provided benefits on some speech perception tasks. The results of the comparative performance questionnaire indicated a preference for the 250 and 807 pps/ch rates over the 1615 pps/ch rate for most listening situations. CONCLUSIONS: For the speech processing strategy, implant system, and subjects evaluated in this study, the group results indicated that the use of electrical stimulation rates higher than 250 pps/ch (up to 1615 pps/ch) generally provided no significant improvement to speech comprehension. However, individual results indicated that perceptual benefits could be obtained by adjusting rate of stimulation optimally to suit each subject. Results from one subject, together with tinnitus problems arising from high-rate stimulation for another subject, indicated that high rates of stimulation may in fact be undesirable for some subjects.
Authors: Ruth Y Litovsky; Matthew J Goupell; Shelly Godar; Tina Grieco-Calub; Gary L Jones; Soha N Garadat; Smita Agrawal; Alan Kan; Ann Todd; Christi Hess; Sara Misurelli Journal: J Am Acad Audiol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 1.664
Authors: Philipos C Loizou; Yi Hu; Ruth Litovsky; Gongqiang Yu; Robert Peters; Jennifer Lake; Peter Roland Journal: J Acoust Soc Am Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: Laura K Holden; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Rosalie M Uchanski; Noël Y Dwyer; Timothy A Holden Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 2.311