Literature DB >> 16805373

Effects of converting bilateral cochlear implant subjects to a strategy with increased rate and number of channels.

Camille C Dunn1, Richard S Tyler, Shelley A Witt, Bruce J Gantz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Three different Advanced Bionics processing strategies were evaluated: 1) 8-channel, 813 pulses per second (pps), Continuous Interleaved Sampling (CIS); 2) 16-channel, 5,100 pps, HiResolution Paired (HiRes P); and 3) 16-channel, 2,900 pps, HiResolution Sequential (HiRes S).
METHODS: Seven adult bilateral Clarion CII cochlear implant recipients who had been using a CIS processing strategy for at least 18 months participated in this study. Sentence recognition in multitalker babble from the front was collected on subjects using their CIS strategy and after subjects were programmed for the first time with HiRes P and HiRes S strategies. An ABAB design was implemented for 1 month whereby subjects used each HiResolution strategy every other day. Sentence recognition testing was repeated at the 1- and 3-month post-HiResolution test intervals.
RESULTS: Comparisons between the CIS and HiResolution strategies showed immediate improvements for 5 subjects in favor of the HiResolution strategies. After 1 month of alternating between the HiRes P and HiRes S strategies, remarkably, 2 subjects showed improvements of 60%, 2 subjects showed improvements of 40%, and 2 subjects showed improvements of 30% over the CIS strategy that they had previously used for at least 18 months. The results after 3 months of use were consistent with those obtained at 1 month.
CONCLUSIONS: The HiRes S and HiRes P strategies resulted in dramatic improvements in speech perception in noise for a subset of subjects who had been using the CIS strategy bilaterally. This finding demonstrates that these subjects were able to tolerate a more difficult signal-to-noise ratio. Further work is needed to determine the independent effects of rate versus number of channels.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16805373     DOI: 10.1177/000348940611500605

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol        ISSN: 0003-4894            Impact factor:   1.547


  6 in total

1.  Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-06       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

Review 3.  Stem cells and molecular strategies to restore hearing.

Authors:  S Pauley; B Kopecky; K Beisel; G Soukup; B Fritzsch
Journal:  Panminerva Med       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 5.197

4.  Speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of standard HiRes and HiRes 120 sound processing.

Authors:  Jill B Firszt; Laura K Holden; Ruth M Reeder; Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Electric to acoustic pitch matching: a possible way to improve individual cochlear implant fitting.

Authors:  Walter Di Nardo; Italo Cantore; Maria Raffaella Marchese; Francesca Cianfrone; Alessandro Scorpecci; Sara Giannantonio; Gaetano Paludetti
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  A daily alternating method for comparing different signal-processing strategies in hearing aids and in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Richard S Tyler; Shelley A Witt; Camille C Dunn; Ann E Perreau
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 1.664

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.