Literature DB >> 20144699

Sensitivity of psychophysical measures to signal processor modifications in cochlear implant users.

Ward R Drennan1, Jong Ho Won, Kaibao Nie, Elyse Jameyson, Jay T Rubinstein.   

Abstract

Experienced users of the Clarion cochlear implant were tested acutely with the HiResolution (HiRes) and HiRes Fidelity120 (F120) processing strategies. Three psychophysically-based tests were used including spectral-ripple discrimination, Schroeder-phase discrimination and temporal modulation detection. Three clinical outcome measures were used including consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word recognition in quiet, word recognition in noise and the clinical assessment of music perception (CAMP). Listener's spectral-ripple discrimination ability improved with F120, but Schroeder-phase discrimination was worse with F120 than with HiRes. Listeners who had better than average acuity showed the biggest effects. There were no significant effects of the processing strategy on any of the clinical abilities nor on temporal modulation detection. Additionally, the listeners' day-to-day clinical strategy did not appear to influence the result suggesting that experience with the strategies did not play a significant role. The results underscore the value of acoustic psychophysical measures through the sound processor as a tool in clinical research, because these measures are more sensitive to changes in the processing strategies than traditional clinical measures, e.g. speech understanding. The measures allow for the evaluation of sensitivity to specific acoustic attributes revealing the extent to which different processing strategies affect these basic abilities and could thus improve the efficiency of the development of processing strategies. Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20144699      PMCID: PMC2864608          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2010.02.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  17 in total

1.  The resolution of complex spectral patterns by cochlear implant and normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Belinda A Henry; Christopher W Turner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  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

3.  Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Belinda A Henry; Christopher W Turner; Amy Behrens
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Using current steering to increase spectral resolution in CII and HiRes 90K users.

Authors:  Dawn Burton Koch; Mark Downing; Mary Joe Osberger; Leonid Litvak
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests.

Authors:  G E PETERSON; I LEHISTE
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1962-02

6.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.

Authors:  H Levitt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1971-02       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations.

Authors:  Carlo K Berenstein; Lucas H M Mens; Jef J S Mulder; Filiep J Vanpoucke
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Temporal modulation transfer functions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  S P Bacon; N F Viemeister
Journal:  Audiology       Date:  1985

9.  Auditory temporal resolution in birds: discrimination of harmonic complexes.

Authors:  Robert J Dooling; Marjorie R Leek; Otto Gleich; Micheal L Dent
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Enhancing temporal cues to voice pitch in continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants.

Authors:  Tim Green; Andrew Faulkner; Stuart Rosen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  32 in total

1.  A psychophysical method for measuring spatial resolution in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Mahan Azadpour; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-10-15

2.  Evidence of across-channel processing for spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Gary L Jones; Ward R Drennan; Elyse M Jameyson; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Relationship between behavioral and physiological spectral-ripple discrimination.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Christopher G Clinard; Seeyoun Kwon; Vasant K Dasika; Kaibao Nie; Ward R Drennan; Kelly L Tremblay; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-01-27

4.  Comparing spatial tuning curves, spectral ripple resolution, and speech perception in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Anderson; David A Nelson; Heather Kreft; Peggy B Nelson; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Spectral and temporal analysis of simulated dead regions in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Gary L Jones; Il Joon Moon; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-03-05

6.  Improved perception of speech in noise and Mandarin tones with acoustic simulations of harmonic coding for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Xing Li; Kaibao Nie; Nikita S Imennov; Jong Ho Won; Ward R Drennan; Jay T Rubinstein; Les E Atlas
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Relationship between channel interaction and spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Gary L Jones; Jong Ho Won; Ward R Drennan; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Validation of a clinical assessment of spectral-ripple resolution for cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ward R Drennan; Elizabeth S Anderson; Jong Ho Won; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Image-guidance enables new methods for customizing cochlear implant stimulation strategies.

Authors:  Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford; Benoit M Dawant
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 3.802

10.  Nonlinguistic Outcome Measures in Adult Cochlear Implant Users Over the First Year of Implantation.

Authors:  Ward R Drennan; Jong Ho Won; Alden O Timme; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.