Literature DB >> 18379812

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

Walter Di Nardo1, Italo Cantore, Maria Raffaella Marchese, Francesca Cianfrone, Alessandro Scorpecci, Sara Giannantonio, Gaetano Paludetti.   

Abstract

Poor pitch resolution has been shown to have negative implications for speech and music perception in implanted patients. Surprisingly, works on the subject have not focused much on the impact that the non-correspondence between frequencies allocated to electrodes and perceived frequencies could have on speech and music perception. The aim of the present study is to investigate the correlation between pitch mismatch and speech performance with the implant, and to ascertain the effects of mismatch correction through a mapping function making a personalized frequency reallocation possible. We studied ten postlingually deaf adult patients with detectable bilateral residual hearing, implanted in our Clinic with Cochlear Nucleus devices. In each test session, we asked the patients to find the best match between the pitch elicited by the residual ipsilateral and contralateral pure tones and the pitch elicited by stimulation of electrodes. We also assessed patients' vowel and consonant recognition performance. Finally, in the only implanted patient in our clinic who had bilateral residual hearing and used a Digisonic DX10/C device, which makes manual electrode-by-electrode frequency reallocation possible, we modified electrode-assigned frequency ranges on the basis of the pitch matching test results. We found that in none of the studied patients, the electric-to-acoustic pitch matching corresponds to the theoretical assignment pattern. A very strong correlation was detected between the electric-to-acoustic pitch mismatch and patient's speech performance. In the Digisonic patient, a remarkable improvement in all phoneme recognition scores was obtained 1 month after frequency reallocation. In the light of our results, we propose to assess, whenever possible, any frequency-to-electrode mismatch in all implanted patients, and correct it through mapping programs allowing manual frequency reallocation for the pitch-matched electrodes, and automated allocation of the non-tested electrodes. Cochlear implantation should therefore be proposed when residuals for all frequencies are still present, at least in one ear, so as to allow optimal alignment between allocated and subjectively perceived frequencies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18379812     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-008-0655-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  20 in total

1.  The effect of frequency allocation on phoneme recognition with the nucleus 22 cochlear implant.

Authors:  L M Friesen; R V Shannon; W H Slattery
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1999-11

2.  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

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

Authors:  Camille C Dunn; Richard S Tyler; Shelley A Witt; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 1.547

4.  The cochlear implant electrode-pitch function.

Authors:  Uwe Baumann; Andrea Nobbe
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-01-25       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  An electric frequency-to-place map for a cochlear implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Tony Spahr; Rene Gifford; Louise Loiselle; Sharon McKarns; Timothy Holden; Margaret Skinner; Charles Finley
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-03-10

6.  Current steering creates additional pitch percepts in adult cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Jill B Firszt; Dawn Burton Koch; Mark Downing; Leonid Litvak
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise.

Authors:  Kate Gfeller; Christopher Turner; Jacob Oleson; Xuyang Zhang; Bruce Gantz; Rebecca Froman; Carol Olszewski
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 8.  Music perception with cochlear implants: a review.

Authors:  Hugh J McDermott
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2004

9.  Familiar melody recognition by children and adults using cochlear implants and normal hearing children.

Authors:  Carol Olszewski; Kate Gfeller; Rebecca Froman; Julie Stordahl; Bruce Tomblin
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2005-09

10.  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
View more
  8 in total

1.  Improving melody recognition in cochlear implant recipients through individualized frequency map fitting.

Authors:  Walter Di Nardo; Alessandro Scorpecci; Sara Giannantonio; Francesca Cianfrone; Gaetano Paludetti
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-07-16       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Is there a fundamental 300 Hz limit to pulse rate discrimination in cochlear implants?

Authors:  Pieter J Venter; Johan J Hanekom
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-06-19

3.  Superior temporal resolution of Chronos versus channelrhodopsin-2 in an optogenetic model of the auditory brainstem implant.

Authors:  Ariel Edward Hight; Elliott D Kozin; Keith Darrow; Ashton Lehmann; Edward Boyden; M Christian Brown; Daniel J Lee
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2015-01-15       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Effects of extreme tonotopic mismatches between bilateral cochlear implants on electric pitch perception: a case study.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Mary W Lowder; Sue A Karsten; Christopher W Turner; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Judgment of musical emotions after cochlear implantation in adults with progressive deafness.

Authors:  Emmanuèle Ambert-Dahan; Anne-Lise Giraud; Olivier Sterkers; Séverine Samson
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-03-12

6.  Pitch Discrimination: An Independent Factor in Cochlear Implant Performance Outcomes.

Authors:  Bruno Kenway; Yu Chuen Tam; Zebunnisa Vanat; Frances Harris; Roger Gray; John Birchall; Robert Carlyon; Patrick Axon
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Infant hearing loss: from diagnosis to therapy Official Report of XXI Conference of Italian Society of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology.

Authors:  G Paludetti; G Conti; W DI Nardo; E DE Corso; R Rolesi; P M Picciotti; A R Fetoni
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.124

8.  Musical training software for children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  W Di Nardo; L Schinaia; R Anzivino; E De Corso; A Ciacciarelli; G Paludetti
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.124

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.