Literature DB >> 18025998

Cochlear implant speech processor frequency allocations may influence pitch perception.

Lina A J Reiss1, Bruce J Gantz, Christopher W Turner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of assigning cochlear implant speech processor frequencies normally associated with more apical cochlear locations to the shallow insertion depths of the Iowa/Nucleus Hybrid electrode. STUDY
DESIGN: Subjects using the Hybrid implant for more than 1 year were tested on speech recognition with Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant words and consonant stimuli. Pitch sensations of individual electrodes were also measured electrically through the implant and acoustically in the contralateral ear.
SETTING: Tertiary care center.
RESULTS: Most subjects showed large improvements in speech recognition within 12 months after implantation. Furthermore, after longer periods of 24-plus months, some individuals were able to achieve high levels of consonant discrimination with electric-only processing comparable to long-electrode patients with deeper electrode insertions. Pitch perceptions obtained from individual electrodes in these subjects were closer to the frequency map assigned an electrode than the place-frequency predicted from cochlear location.
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that over time, pitch sensations may be determined more by the implant map than by cochlear location. In other words, the brain may adapt to spectral mismatches by remapping pitch. Furthermore, patients can perform well with shifted frequency allocations for speech recognition. The successful application of shifted frequency allocations also supports the idea of shallower insertions and greater preservation of residual hearing for all cochlear implants, regardless of the patient's frequency range of usable residual hearing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18025998      PMCID: PMC4243703          DOI: 10.1097/mao.0b013e31815aedf4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  15 in total

1.  Effects of electrode configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant.

Authors:  Q J Fu; R V Shannon
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants.

Authors:  S Rosen; A Faulkner; L Wilkinson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing.

Authors:  Q J Fu; R V Shannon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Christopher W Turner; Bruce J Gantz; Corina Vidal; Amy Behrens; Belinda A Henry
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Music perception with cochlear implants and residual hearing.

Authors:  Kate E Gfeller; Carol Olszewski; Christopher Turner; Bruce Gantz; Jacob Oleson
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2006-10-06       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  Acoustic plus electric speech processing: preliminary results of a multicenter clinical trial of the Iowa/Nucleus Hybrid implant.

Authors:  Bruce J Gantz; Christopher Turner; Kate E Gfeller
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2006-10-06       Impact factor: 1.854

7.  Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Olga Stakhovskaya; Divya Sridhar; Ben H Bonham; Patricia A Leake
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-02-21

8.  Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding.

Authors:  M F Dorman; P C Loizou; D Rainey
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Christopher W Turner; Sheryl R Erenberg; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-03-09

10.  Simulations of tonotopically mapped speech processors for cochlear implant electrodes varying in insertion depth.

Authors:  Andrew Faulkner; Stuart Rosen; Deborah Stanton
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  27 in total

1.  A new software tool to optimize frequency table selection for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Daniel Jethanamest; Chin-Tuan Tan; Matthew B Fitzgerald; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 2.  Combined acoustic and electric hearing: preserving residual acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Christopher W Turner; Lina A J Reiss; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Binaural sensitivity in children who use bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Erica Ehlers; Matthew J Goupell; Yi Zheng; Shelly P Godar; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Bilateral Cochlear Implants Using Two Electrode Lengths in Infants With Profound Deafness.

Authors:  Camille C Dunn; Elizabeth A Walker; Stephanie Gogel; Tanya Van Voorst; Marlan Hansen; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Consonant recognition as a function of the number of stimulation channels in the Hybrid short-electrode cochlear implant.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Christopher W Turner; Sue A Karsten; Sheryl R Erenberg; Jessica Taylor; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Effects of lower frequency-to-electrode allocations on speech and pitch perception with the hybrid short-electrode cochlear implant.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Ann E Perreau; Christopher W Turner
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 1.854

7.  Two Ears Are Not Always Better than One: Mandatory Vowel Fusion Across Spectrally Mismatched Ears in Hearing-Impaired Listeners.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Jessica L Eggleston; Emily P Walker; Yonghee Oh
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-05-24

8.  Pitch Matching Adapts Even for Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users with Relatively Small Initial Pitch Differences Across the Ears.

Authors:  Justin M Aronoff; Hannah E Staisloff; Abbigail Kirchner; Daniel H Lee; Julia Stelmach
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-08-05

9.  MUSIC APPRECIATION AND TRAINING FOR COCHLEAR IMPLANT RECIPIENTS: A REVIEW.

Authors:  Valerie Looi; Kate Gfeller; Virginia Driscoll
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2012-11-19

Review 10.  The Hybrid cochlear implant: a review.

Authors:  Erika A Woodson; Lina A J Reiss; Christopher W Turner; Kate Gfeller; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-11-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.