Literature DB >> 19194297

Lexical tone perception with HiResolution and HiResolution 120 sound-processing strategies in pediatric Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.

Demin Han1, Bo Liu, Ning Zhou, Xueqing Chen, Ying Kong, Haihong Liu, Yan Zheng, Li Xu.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Lexical tone recognition tends to be poor in cochlear implant users. The HiResolution (HiRes) sound-processing strategy is designed to better preserve temporal fine structure, or the detailed envelope information, of an acoustic signal. The newer HiRes 120 strategy builds on HiRes by increasing the amount of potential spectral information delivered to the implant user. The purpose of this study was to examine lexical tone recognition in native Mandarin Chinese-speaking children with cochlear implants using the HiRes and HiRes 120 sound-processing strategies. Tone recognition performance was tested with HiRes at baseline and then after up to 6 mo of HiRes 120 experience in the same subjects.
DESIGN: Twenty prelingually deafened, native Mandarin-speaking children, with ages ranging from 3.5 to 16.5 yr, participated. All children completed a computerized tone contrast test on three occasions: (1) using HiRes immediately before conversion to HiRes 120 (baseline), (2) 1 mo after conversion, and (3) 3 mo after conversion. Twelve of the 20 children also were tested 6 mo after conversion. In addition, the parents of 18 children completed a questionnaire at the 3-mo follow-up visit regarding the preference of sound-processing strategies and the children's experience related to various aspects of auditory perception and speech production using HiRes 120.
RESULTS: As a group, no statistically significant differences were seen between the tone recognition scores using HiRes and HiRes 120. Individual scores showed great variability. Tone recognition performance ranged from chance (50% correct) to nearly perfect. Using the conventional HiRes strategy, 6 of the 20 children achieved high-level tone recognition performance (i.e., >or=90% correct), whereas 7 performed at a level not significantly different from chance (50-60% correct). At the final test, either 3 or 6 mo after conversion, all children achieved tone recognition performance with HiRes 120 that was equal to or better than that with HiRes, although some children's tone recognition performance was worse initially at the 1 or 3 mo follow-up intervals than at baseline. Eight of the 20 children showed statistically significant improvement in tone recognition performance with HiRes 120 on at least one of the follow-up tests. Age at implantation was correlated with tone recognition performance at all four test intervals. Parents of most of the children indicated that the children preferred HiRes 120 more than HiRes.
CONCLUSIONS: As a group, HiRes 120 did not provide significantly improved lexical tone recognition compared to HiRes, at least throughout the length of the study (up to 6 mo). There were large individual differences in lexical tone recognition among the prelingually deafened, native Mandarin-speaking children with cochlear implants using either HiRes or HiRes 120. Six of the 20 children performed at or near ceiling in the baseline HiRes condition. Of the remainder, approximately half showed significantly better tone recognition when subsequently tested with HiRes 120, although the extent to which this improvement may be attributable to factors other than the change in processing strategy (e.g., general development) is unknown. The children who benefited most from HiRes 120 tended to be those who were implanted at younger ages.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19194297      PMCID: PMC2783178          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31819342cf

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  42 in total

1.  Tone perception of Cantonese-speaking prelingually hearing-impaired children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Angela O C Wong; Lena L N Wong
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.497

2.  Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Rachel Cruz; J Ackland Jones; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Mandarin tone recognition in cochlear-implant subjects.

Authors:  Chao-Gang Wei; Keli Cao; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B S Wilson; C C Finley; D T Lawson; R D Wolford; D K Eddington; W M Rabinowitz
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1991-07-18       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects.

Authors:  B Townshend; N Cotter; D Van Compernolle; R L White
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  A "rationalized" arcsine transform.

Authors:  G A Studebaker
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1985-09

7.  Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable.

Authors:  A R Thornton; M J Raffin
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1978-09

Review 8.  Trends in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2004

9.  HiResolution and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution bionic ear: using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability.

Authors:  Dawn Burton Koch; Mary Joe Osberger; Phil Segel; Dorcas Kessler
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.854

10.  Perception and production of mandarin tones in prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Shu-Chen Peng; J Bruce Tomblin; Hintat Cheung; Yung-Song Lin; Lih-Sheue Wang
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  27 in total

1.  Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening.

Authors:  Kate Helms Tillery; Christopher A Brown; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Pitch contour identification with combined place and temporal cues using cochlear implants.

Authors:  Xin Luo; Monica Padilla; David M Landsberger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Encoding pitch contours using current steering.

Authors:  Xin Luo; David M Landsberger; Monica Padilla; Arthi G Srinivasan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Relative contributions of temporal envelope and fine structure cues to lexical tone recognition in hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  Shuo Wang; Li Xu; Robert Mannell
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-08-11

5.  Vocal singing by prelingually-deafened children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Li Xu; Ning Zhou; Xiuwu Chen; Yongxin Li; Heather M Schultz; Xiaoyan Zhao; Demin Han
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-06-26       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Lexical tone recognition in noise in normal-hearing children and prelingually deafened children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Yitao Mao; Li Xu
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 2.117

7.  Melodic pitch perception and lexical tone perception in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Duoduo Tao; Rui Deng; Ye Jiang; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu; Bing Chen
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Speech intonation and melodic contour recognition in children with cochlear implants and with normal hearing.

Authors:  Rachel L See; Virginia D Driscoll; Kate Gfeller; Stephanie Kliethermes; Jacob Oleson
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Contribution of bimodal hearing to lexical tone normalization in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Xin Luo; Yi-Ping Chang; Chun-Yi Lin; Ronald Y Chang
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-02-24       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Relationship between tone perception and production in prelingually deafened children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Juan Huang; Xiuwu Chen; Li Xu
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.311

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.