OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to determine whether individual cochlear implant recipients recognize speech better with an electrical stimulation rate of 720 or 1800 pulses per second per channel (pps/ch) using the Nucleus 24 Advanced Combination Encoder (ACE) speech coding strategy. The secondary objective was to determine, for each active electrode, the relation between psychophysical measures and MAP minimum and maximum stimulation levels for each rate, as well as the stability of MAP minimum and maximum levels during the study. DESIGN: Eight postlinguistically deaf adults implanted with the Nucleus 24 device participated in this study comparing the effect of a moderate (720 pps/ch) and a fast (1800 pps/ch) rate of electrical stimulation on speech recognition of words in quiet and sentences in noise presented at 50, 60, and 70 dB SPL in the laboratory and on listening to sound in everyday life over a 14-wk time period. At the beginning of the study, psychophysical measures (i.e., counted threshold and maximum acceptable loudness [MAL] levels) were obtained for each active electrode with each of the two rates to initially set MAP minimum and maximum stimulation levels. These levels were then adjusted to make speech and environmental sound clear and comfortable in everyday life. Threshold and MAL levels were obtained again half way through the study to monitor possible hearing changes. A four-phase test design for evaluation of speech recognition was followed; an equal number of subjects started with each of the two rates and alternated rates for each phase. In the last 2 wk of each phase, word and sentence scores were obtained, and subjects responded to a questionnaire. For the group, factorial analyses of variance were conducted for subject, stimulation rate, and time period (first two phases versus second two phases) for words, phonemes within words, and sentences at each level. Additional analyses were obtained for individual subjects. RESULTS: Group mean scores across time periods were significantly higher for 1800 pps/ch than 720 pps/ch for phonemes and sentences in noise at 50 dB SPL. There was no significant difference in scores for phonemes and sentences at 60 and 70 dB SPL or for words at any of the three levels. Group mean scores across stimulation rate were significantly higher during the second half than the first half of the study for words, phonemes, and sentences at 50 dB SPL. This result is consistent with subjects learning to recognize speech cues near threshold. A subject by rate interaction was seen for sentences at 70 dB SPL and for all three speech measures at 50 dB SPL. These interactions reflect the fact that two subjects performed significantly better with 720 pps/ch, whereas two other subjects performed significantly better with 1800 pps/ch. Responses to the questionnaire indicated that two subjects preferred 720 pps/ch, three preferred 1800 pps/ch, and three had no preference. The minimum and/or maximum levels in most subjects' final MAPs differed from the psychophysical measures for both rates. Changes in Current Level at threshold and MAL were minimal from the first to the second half of the study for each rate. CONCLUSIONS: More than half the subjects preferred one of the two rates for use in everyday life, and four subjects performed significantly better with one of the two rates on at least one test measure. These findings underscore the clinical importance of creating MAPs for each implant recipient that include at least a moderate and a fast rate within ACE during the first months of device use. Given the significant learning effects for soft speech that occurred over several weeks use of each rate in this study, it is suggested that each rate be used alone for a week or two before comparing them and deciding which provides more benefit. In addition, adjustments in an individual's MAP minimum and maximum levels are needed at each rate so soft and normal conversational speech as well as loud sound are clear and comfortable in everyday life.
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to determine whether individual cochlear implant recipients recognize speech better with an electrical stimulation rate of 720 or 1800 pulses per second per channel (pps/ch) using the Nucleus 24 Advanced Combination Encoder (ACE) speech coding strategy. The secondary objective was to determine, for each active electrode, the relation between psychophysical measures and MAP minimum and maximum stimulation levels for each rate, as well as the stability of MAP minimum and maximum levels during the study. DESIGN: Eight postlinguistically deaf adults implanted with the Nucleus 24 device participated in this study comparing the effect of a moderate (720 pps/ch) and a fast (1800 pps/ch) rate of electrical stimulation on speech recognition of words in quiet and sentences in noise presented at 50, 60, and 70 dB SPL in the laboratory and on listening to sound in everyday life over a 14-wk time period. At the beginning of the study, psychophysical measures (i.e., counted threshold and maximum acceptable loudness [MAL] levels) were obtained for each active electrode with each of the two rates to initially set MAP minimum and maximum stimulation levels. These levels were then adjusted to make speech and environmental sound clear and comfortable in everyday life. Threshold and MAL levels were obtained again half way through the study to monitor possible hearing changes. A four-phase test design for evaluation of speech recognition was followed; an equal number of subjects started with each of the two rates and alternated rates for each phase. In the last 2 wk of each phase, word and sentence scores were obtained, and subjects responded to a questionnaire. For the group, factorial analyses of variance were conducted for subject, stimulation rate, and time period (first two phases versus second two phases) for words, phonemes within words, and sentences at each level. Additional analyses were obtained for individual subjects. RESULTS: Group mean scores across time periods were significantly higher for 1800 pps/ch than 720 pps/ch for phonemes and sentences in noise at 50 dB SPL. There was no significant difference in scores for phonemes and sentences at 60 and 70 dB SPL or for words at any of the three levels. Group mean scores across stimulation rate were significantly higher during the second half than the first half of the study for words, phonemes, and sentences at 50 dB SPL. This result is consistent with subjects learning to recognize speech cues near threshold. A subject by rate interaction was seen for sentences at 70 dB SPL and for all three speech measures at 50 dB SPL. These interactions reflect the fact that two subjects performed significantly better with 720 pps/ch, whereas two other subjects performed significantly better with 1800 pps/ch. Responses to the questionnaire indicated that two subjects preferred 720 pps/ch, three preferred 1800 pps/ch, and three had no preference. The minimum and/or maximum levels in most subjects' final MAPs differed from the psychophysical measures for both rates. Changes in Current Level at threshold and MAL were minimal from the first to the second half of the study for each rate. CONCLUSIONS: More than half the subjects preferred one of the two rates for use in everyday life, and four subjects performed significantly better with one of the two rates on at least one test measure. These findings underscore the clinical importance of creating MAPs for each implant recipient that include at least a moderate and a fast rate within ACE during the first months of device use. Given the significant learning effects for soft speech that occurred over several weeks use of each rate in this study, it is suggested that each rate be used alone for a week or two before comparing them and deciding which provides more benefit. In addition, adjustments in an individual's MAP minimum and maximum levels are needed at each rate so soft and normal conversational speech as well as loud sound are clear and comfortable in everyday life.