Literature DB >> 19928395

Evaluation of speech recognition in noise with cochlear implants and dynamic FM.

Jace Wolfe1, Erin C Schafer, Benjamin Heldner, Hans Mülder, Emily Ward, Brandon Vincent.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Use of personal frequency-modulated (FM) systems significantly improves speech recognition in noise for users of cochlear implants (CIs). Previous studies have shown that the most appropriate gain setting on the FM receiver may vary based on the listening situation and the manufacturer of the CI system. Unlike traditional FM systems with fixed-gain settings, Dynamic FM automatically varies the gain of the FM receiver with changes in the ambient noise level. There are no published reports describing the benefits of Dynamic FM use for CI recipients or how Dynamic FM performance varies as a function of CI manufacturer.
PURPOSE: To evaluate speech recognition of Advanced Bionics Corporation or Cochlear Corporation CI recipients using Dynamic FM vs. a traditional FM system and to examine the effects of Autosensitivity on the FM performance of Cochlear Corporation recipients. RESEARCH
DESIGN: A two-group repeated-measures design. Participants were assigned to a group according to their type of CI. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-five subjects, ranging in age from 8 to 82 years, met the inclusion criteria for one or more of the experiments. Thirteen subjects used Advanced Bionics Corporation, and 12 used Cochlear Corporation implants. INTERVENTION: Speech recognition was assessed while subjects used traditional, fixed-gain FM systems and Dynamic FM systems. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: In Experiments 1 and 2, speech recognition was evaluated with a traditional, fixed-gain FM system and a Dynamic FM system using the Hearing in Noise Test sentences in quiet and in classroom noise. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate effects of CI manufacturer (Advanced Bionics and Cochlear Corporation), type of FM system (traditional and dynamic), noise level, and use of Autosensitivity for users of Cochlear Corporation implants. Experiment 3 determined the effects of Autosensitivity on speech recognition of Cochlear Corporation implant recipients when listening through the speech processor microphone with the FM system muted. A repeated-measures ANOVA was used to examine the effects of signal-to-noise ratio and Autosensitivity.
RESULTS: In Experiment 1, use of Dynamic FM resulted in better speech recognition in noise for Advanced Bionics recipients relative to traditional FM at noise levels of 65, 70, and 75 dB SPL. Advanced Bionics recipients obtained better speech recognition in noise with FM use when compared to Cochlear Corporation recipients. When Autosensitivity was enabled in Experiment 2, the performance of Cochlear Corporation recipients was equivalent to that of Advanced Bionics recipients, and Dynamic FM was significantly better than traditional FM. Results of Experiment 3 indicate that use of Autosensitivity improves speech recognition in noise of signals directed to the speech processor relative to no Autosensitivity.
CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic FM should be considered for use with persons with CIs to improve speech recognition in noise. At default CI settings, FM performance is better for Advanced Bionics recipients when compared to Cochlear Corporation recipients, but use of Autosensitivity by Cochlear Corporation users results in equivalent group performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19928395     DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.20.7.3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  18 in total

Review 1.  Guidelines for Best Practice in the Audiological Management of Adults with Severe and Profound Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Laura Turton; Pamela Souza; Linda Thibodeau; Louise Hickson; René Gifford; Judith Bird; Maren Stropahl; Lorraine Gailey; Bernadette Fulton; Nerina Scarinci; Katie Ekberg; Barbra Timmer
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2020-12-16

2.  The Effects of Preprocessing Strategies for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Bernadette Rakszawski; Rose Wright; Jamie H Cadieux; Lisa S Davidson; Christine Brenner
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  Benefits from upgrade to the CP810 sound processor for Nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Isabelle Mosnier; Mathieu Marx; Frederic Venail; Natalie Loundon; Samantha Roux-Vaillard; Olivier Sterkers
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Evaluation of different signal processing options in unilateral and bilateral cochlear freedom implant recipients using R-Space background noise.

Authors:  Alison M Brockmeyer; Lisa G Potts
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.664

5.  Digit training in noise can improve cochlear implant users' speech understanding in noise.

Authors:  Sandra I Oba; Qian-Jie Fu; John J Galvin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in a realistic background noise: effectiveness of preprocessing strategies and external options for improving speech recognition in noise.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Lawrence J Revit
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Bimodal Hearing or Bilateral Cochlear Implants? Ask the Patient.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 8.  Cochlear Implantation for Children and Adults with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Lavin K Entwisle; Sarah E Warren; Jessica J Messersmith
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2018-10-26

9.  The effect of automatic gain control structure and release time on cochlear implant speech intelligibility.

Authors:  Phyu P Khing; Brett A Swanson; Eliathamby Ambikairajah
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-28       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Clinical evaluation of the Nucleus 6 cochlear implant system: performance improvements with SmartSound iQ.

Authors:  Stefan J Mauger; Chris D Warren; Michelle R Knight; Michael Goorevich; Esti Nel
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.