Literature DB >> 15724088

Effects of stimulation rate on speech recognition with cochlear implants.

Lendra M Friesen1, Robert V Shannon, Rachel J Cruz.   

Abstract

Phoneme and speech recognition were measured as a function of stimulation pulse rate in 12 listeners with three types of cochlear implants. Identification of consonants and vowels and recognition of words and sentences were measured in 5 Clarion C1 subjects fit with continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) processors having 4 or 8 electrodes, 4 Nucleus 24 subjects fit with CIS processors having 4, 8, 12 or 16 electrodes and 3 Clarion C2 subjects fit with CIS processors with 4, 8, 12 and 16 electrodes. Stimulation rates ranged from 200 to more than 5000 Hz per electrode, depending on the device, number of electrodes used and stimulation strategy. Listeners were also tested on the same materials with their original processor prior to receiving the experimental processors. All testing was done in quiet listening conditions with essentially no practice with the experimental processor prior to data collection. Listeners scored the highest with their original processor. Little difference in speech understanding was observed for listener scores with processors using different stimulation rates. Speech recognition was significantly poorer only at the lowest stimulation rate and at high rates that used noninterleaved pulses. Speech recognition was similar for processors using 8, 12 or 16 electrodes. Only 4-electrode processors produced a significantly poorer performance. These results suggest that patients with present commercial implants are not able to make full use of the number of channels of spectral information delivered by the present speech processors. In addition, the results show no significant change in performance as a function of stimulation rate, suggesting that high stimulation rates do not result in improved access to temporal cues in speech, at least under quiet listening conditions. Copyright 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15724088     DOI: 10.1159/000084027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Audiol Neurootol        ISSN: 1420-3030            Impact factor:   1.854


  27 in total

1.  A point process framework for modeling electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve.

Authors:  Joshua H Goldwyn; Jay T Rubinstein; Eric Shea-Brown
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Monopolar intracochlear pulse trains selectively activate the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Matthew C Schoenecker; Ben H Bonham; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Russell L Snyder; Patricia A Leake
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-06-22

3.  Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant users' phoneme, word and sentence recognition in quiet and in noise.

Authors:  Robert V Shannon; Rachel J Cruz; John J Galvin
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2010-07-17       Impact factor: 1.854

4.  Auditory sensitivity may require dynamically unstable spike generators: evidence from a model of electrical stimulation.

Authors:  David E O'Gorman; H Steven Colburn; Christopher A Shera
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 5.  Temporal Considerations for Stimulating Spiral Ganglion Neurons with Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Jason Boulet; Mark White; Ian C Bruce
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-02

6.  Effect of stimulus level on the temporal response properties of the auditory nerve in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Sarah A Laurello
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Effects of stimulation rate, mode and level on modulation detection by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-09

8.  Spectral and temporal cues for speech recognition: implications for auditory prostheses.

Authors:  Li Xu; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-12-28       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  The effect of presentation level and stimulation rate on speech perception and modulation detection for cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Tim Brochier; Hugh J McDermott; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  The relation between auditory-nerve temporal responses and perceptual rate integration in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Jenny L Goehring
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-08-02       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.