Literature DB >> 12701728

Optimizing the number of electrodes with high-rate stimulation of the clarion CII cochlear implant.

Johan H M Frijns1, W Martin C Klop, Raymond M Bonnet, Jeroen J Briaire.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This blind crossover study evaluates the effect of the number of electrodes of the Clarion CII cochlear implant on speech perception in silence and in noise using a "high-rate" continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) strategy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nine users of this implant with 3-11 months of experience of an 8-channel CIS strategy [833 pulses per second (pps)/channel, 75 micros/phase] were fitted in a random order with 8-, 12- and 16-channel CIS strategies (+/- 1,400 pps/channel, 21 micros/phase). After 1 month of exclusive use of each strategy the performance was tested with consonant-vowel-consonant words in silence (sound only) and in speech-shaped background noise with signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of + 10, + 5, 0 and -5 dB.
RESULTS: With "high-rate" strategies most patients' speech understanding in noise improved, although the optimum number of electrodes was highly variable. Generally, faster performers benefited from more active electrodes, whilst slower performers deteriorated. If each patient's optimal strategy was determined by a weighted sum of the test results at +10, + 5 and 0 dB SNR, the average phoneme score improved from 57% to 72% at a SNR of + 5 dB, and from 46% to 56% at a SNR of 0 dB. The average phoneme score in silence was approximately 85% for all strategies.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that speech perception (especially in noise) can improve significantly with "high-rate" speech processing strategies, provided that the optimum number of electrodes is determined for each patient individually.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12701728     DOI: 10.1080/0036554021000028126

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol        ISSN: 0001-6489            Impact factor:   1.494


  6 in total

1.  Effect of Stimulation Rate on Speech Understanding in Older Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Maureen J Shader; Nicole Nguyen; Miranda Cleary; Ronna Hertzano; David J Eisenman; Samira Anderson; Sandra Gordon-Salant; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Effect of signal processing strategy and stimulation type on speech and auditory perception in adult cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Susan M Reynolds; René H Gifford
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2019-04-15       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  The effect of reducing the number of electrodes on spatial hearing tasks for bilateral cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Ann Perreau; Richard S Tyler; Shelley A Witt
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  Technical devices for hearing-impaired individuals: cochlear implants and brain stem implants - developments of the last decade.

Authors:  Joachim Müller
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2005-09-28

5.  Effect of Increasing Pulse Phase Duration on Neural Responsiveness of the Electrically Stimulated Cochlear Nerve.

Authors:  Shuman He; Lei Xu; Jeffrey Skidmore; Xiuhua Chao; William J Riggs; Ruijie Wang; Chloe Vaughan; Jianfen Luo; Michelle Shannon; Cynthia Warner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.562

6.  Cochlear implant programming: a global survey on the state of the art.

Authors:  Bart Vaerenberg; Cas Smits; Geert De Ceulaer; Elie Zir; Sally Harman; N Jaspers; Y Tam; Margaret Dillon; Thomas Wesarg; D Martin-Bonniot; L Gärtner; Sebastian Cozma; Julie Kosaner; Sandra Prentiss; P Sasidharan; Jeroen J Briaire; Jane Bradley; J Debruyne; R Hollow; Rajesh Patadia; Lucas Mens; K Veekmans; R Greisiger; E Harboun-Cohen; Stéphanie Borel; Dayse Tavora-Vieira; Patrizia Mancini; Helen Cullington; Amy Han-Chi Ng; Adam Walkowiak; William H Shapiro; Paul J Govaerts
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2014-02-04
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.