Literature DB >> 20639631

Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant users' phoneme, word and sentence recognition in quiet and in noise.

Robert V Shannon1, Rachel J Cruz, John J Galvin.   

Abstract

High stimulation rates in cochlear implants (CI) offer better temporal sampling, can induce stochastic-like firing of auditory neurons and can increase the electric dynamic range, all of which could improve CI speech performance. While commercial CI have employed increasingly high stimulation rates, no clear or consistent advantage has been shown for high rates. In this study, speech recognition was acutely measured with experimental processors in 7 CI subjects (Clarion CII users). The stimulation rate varied between (approx.) 600 and 4800 pulses per second per electrode (ppse) and the number of active electrodes varied between 4 and 16. Vowel, consonant, consonant-nucleus-consonant word and IEEE sentence recognition was acutely measured in quiet and in steady noise (+10 dB signal-to-noise ratio). Subjective quality ratings were obtained for each of the experimental processors in quiet and in noise. Except for a small difference for vowel recognition in quiet, there were no significant differences in performance among the experimental stimulation rates for any of the speech measures. There was also a small but significant increase in subjective quality rating as stimulation rates increased from 1200 to 2400 ppse in noise. Consistent with previous studies, performance significantly improved as the number of electrodes was increased from 4 to 8, but no significant difference showed between 8, 12 and 16 electrodes. Altogether, there was little-to-no advantage of high stimulation rates in quiet or in noise, at least for the present speech tests and conditions.
Copyright © 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20639631      PMCID: PMC2948665          DOI: 10.1159/000315115

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Audiol Neurootol        ISSN: 1420-3030            Impact factor:   1.854


  42 in total

1.  Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system.

Authors:  A E Vandali; L A Whitford; K L Plant; G M Clark
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Consonant recordings for speech testing.

Authors:  R V Shannon; A Jensvold; M Padilla; M E Robert; X Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Improved temporal coding of sinusoids in electric stimulation of the auditory nerve using desynchronizing pulse trains.

Authors:  Leonid M Litvak; Bertrand Delgutte; Donald K Eddington
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs.

Authors:  M F Dorman; P C Loizou; D Rainey
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Effects of pulse rate and electrode array design on intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Heather A Kreft; Gail S Donaldson; David A Nelson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation.

Authors:  J T Rubinstein; B S Wilson; C C Finley; P J Abbas
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing.

Authors:  Q J Fu; R V Shannon; X Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+.

Authors:  S M Brill; W Gstöttner; J Helms; C von Ilberg; W Baumgartner; J Müller; J Kiefer
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1997-11

9.  Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues.

Authors:  R V Shannon; F G Zeng; V Kamath; J Wygonski; M Ekelid
Journal:  Science       Date:  1995-10-13       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Temporal representations with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B S Wilson; C C Finley; D T Lawson; M Zerbi
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1997-11
View more
  24 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.  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

3.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of channels in perimodiolar electrode recipients.

Authors:  Katelyn A Berg; Jack H Noble; Benoit M Dawant; Robert T Dwyer; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  The effect of presentation level and stimulation rate on speech perception and modulation detection for cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Tim Brochier; Hugh J McDermott; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Characteristics of detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels as a function of pulse rate in human cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Li Xu; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Speech recognition with cochlear implants as a function of the number of channels: Effects of electrode placement.

Authors:  Katelyn A Berg; Jack H Noble; Benoit M Dawant; Robert T Dwyer; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Spatial Release From Masking in Adults With Bilateral Cochlear Implants: Effects of Distracter Azimuth and Microphone Location.

Authors:  Timothy J Davis; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 8.  Auditory implant research at the House Ear Institute 1989-2013.

Authors:  Robert V Shannon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Effect of signal processing strategy and stimulation type on speech and auditory perception in adult cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Susan M Reynolds; René H Gifford
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2019-04-15       Impact factor: 2.117

10.  Effects of electrode deactivation on speech recognition in multichannel cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Teresa A Zwolan; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2017-08-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.