Literature DB >> 16075190

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

John J Galvin1, Qian-Jie Fu.   

Abstract

In cochlear implant (CI) patients, temporal processing is often poorest at low listening levels, making perception difficult for low-amplitude temporal cues that are important for consonant recognition and/or speech perception in noise. It remains unclear how speech processor parameters such as stimulation rate and stimulation mode may affect temporal processing, especially at low listening levels. The present study investigated the effects of these parameters on modulation detection by six CI users. Modulation detection thresholds (MDTs) were measured as functions of stimulation rate, mode, and level. Results show that for all stimulation rate and mode conditions, modulation sensitivity was poorest at quiet listening levels, consistent with results from previous studies. MDTs were better with the lower stimulation rate, especially for quiet-to-medium listening levels. Stimulation mode had no significant effect on MDTs. These results suggest that, although high stimulation rates may better encode temporal information and widen the electrode dynamic range, CI patients may not be able to access these enhanced temporal cues, especially at the lower portions of the dynamic range. Lower stimulation rates may provide better recognition of weak acoustic envelope information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16075190      PMCID: PMC2504596          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-005-0007-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1438-7573


  38 in total

1.  Temporal cues for consonant recognition: training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants.

Authors:  D J Van Tasell; D G Greenfield; J J Logemann; D A Nelson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Effects of stimulation rate on speech recognition with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Lendra M Friesen; Robert V Shannon; Rachel J Cruz
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2005-02-17       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  P J Blamey; B C Pyman; M Gordon; G M Clark; A M Brown; R C Dowell; R D Hollow
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 1.547

4.  Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues.

Authors:  R V Shannon; F G Zeng; V Kamath; J Wygonski; M Ekelid
Journal:  Science       Date:  1995-10-13       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception.

Authors:  R Drullman; J M Festen; R Plomp
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception.

Authors:  R Drullman; J M Festen; R Plomp
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Low-pass filtering in amplitude modulation detection associated with vowel and consonant identification in subjects with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Y Cazals; M Pelizzone; O Saudan; C Boex
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Temporal representations with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B S Wilson; C C Finley; D T Lawson; M Zerbi
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1997-11

9.  Auditory temporal resolution and open speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  C Muchnik; R Taitelbaum; S Tene; M Hildesheimer
Journal:  Scand Audiol       Date:  1994

10.  Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  C W Turner; P E Souza; L N Forget
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  54 in total

1.  Detection of pulse trains in the electrically stimulated cochlea: effects of cochlear health.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Deborah J Colesa; Sheena Hembrador; Stephen Y Kang; John C Middlebrooks; Yehoash Raphael; Gina L Su
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  A psychophysical method for measuring spatial resolution in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Mahan Azadpour; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-10-15

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Channel Interaction and Current Level Affect Across-Electrode Integration of Interaural Time Differences in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Katharina Egger; Piotr Majdak; Bernhard Laback
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-09-16

6.  Encoding and decoding amplitude-modulated cochlear implant stimuli--a point process analysis.

Authors:  Joshua H Goldwyn; Eric Shea-Brown; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Comput Neurosci       Date:  2010-02-23       Impact factor: 1.621

Review 7.  The development of the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear implant system.

Authors:  James F Patrick; Peter A Busby; Peter J Gibson
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2006-12

8.  Speech recognition and temporal amplitude modulation processing by Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Xin Luo; Qian-Jie Fu; Chao-Gang Wei; Ke-Li Cao
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Forward masking patterns by low and high-rate stimulation in cochlear implant users: Differences in masking effectiveness and spread of neural excitation.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Lixue Dong; Susannah Dixon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2020-02-15       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  A relation between electrode discrimination and amplitude modulation detection by cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Jian Yu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.