Literature DB >> 20807480

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.

René H Gifford1, Lawrence J Revit.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although cochlear implant patients are achieving increasingly higher levels of performance, speech perception in noise continues to be problematic. The newest generations of implant speech processors are equipped with preprocessing and/or external accessories that are purported to improve listening in noise. Most speech perception measures in the clinical setting, however, do not provide a close approximation to real-world listening environments.
PURPOSE: To assess speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in the presence of a realistic restaurant simulation generated by an eight-loudspeaker (R-SPACE) array in order to determine whether commercially available preprocessing strategies and/or external accessories yield improved sentence recognition in noise. RESEARCH
DESIGN: Single-subject, repeated-measures design with two groups of participants: Advanced Bionics and Cochlear Corporation recipients. STUDY SAMPLE: Thirty-four subjects, ranging in age from 18 to 90 yr (mean 54.5 yr), participated in this prospective study. Fourteen subjects were Advanced Bionics recipients, and 20 subjects were Cochlear Corporation recipients. INTERVENTION: Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in semidiffuse restaurant noise originating from an eight-loudspeaker array were assessed with the subjects' preferred listening programs as well as with the addition of either Beam preprocessing (Cochlear Corporation) or the T-Mic accessory option (Advanced Bionics). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: In Experiment 1, adaptive SRTs with the Hearing in Noise Test sentences were obtained for all 34 subjects. For Cochlear Corporation recipients, SRTs were obtained with their preferred everyday listening program as well as with the addition of Focus preprocessing. For Advanced Bionics recipients, SRTs were obtained with the integrated behind-the-ear (BTE) mic as well as with the T-Mic. Statistical analysis using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) evaluated the effects of the preprocessing strategy or external accessory in reducing the SRT in noise. In addition, a standard t-test was run to evaluate effectiveness across manufacturer for improving the SRT in noise. In Experiment 2, 16 of the 20 Cochlear Corporation subjects were reassessed obtaining an SRT in noise using the manufacturer-suggested "Everyday," "Noise," and "Focus" preprocessing strategies. A repeated-measures ANOVA was employed to assess the effects of preprocessing.
RESULTS: The primary findings were (i) both Noise and Focus preprocessing strategies (Cochlear Corporation) significantly improved the SRT in noise as compared to Everyday preprocessing, (ii) the T-Mic accessory option (Advanced Bionics) significantly improved the SRT as compared to the BTE mic, and (iii) Focus preprocessing and the T-Mic resulted in similar degrees of improvement that were not found to be significantly different from one another.
CONCLUSION: Options available in current cochlear implant sound processors are able to significantly improve speech understanding in a realistic, semidiffuse noise with both Cochlear Corporation and Advanced Bionics systems. For Cochlear Corporation recipients, Focus preprocessing yields the best speech-recognition performance in a complex listening environment; however, it is recommended that Noise preprocessing be used as the new default for everyday listening environments to avoid the need for switching programs throughout the day. For Advanced Bionics recipients, the T-Mic offers significantly improved performance in noise and is recommended for everyday use in all listening environments. American Academy of Audiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20807480      PMCID: PMC4127078          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.21.7.3

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


  22 in total

1.  Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems.

Authors:  Jill B Firszt; Laura K Holden; Margaret W Skinner; Emily A Tobey; Ann Peterson; Wolfgang Gaggl; Christina L Runge-Samuelson; P Ashley Wackym
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Performance of directional microphones for hearing aids: real-world versus simulation.

Authors:  Cynthia L Compton-Conley; Arlene C Neuman; Mead C Killion; Harry Levitt
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  A digital processing strategy to optimize hearing aid outputs directly.

Authors:  Peter J Blamey; Lois F A Martin; Hayley J Fiket
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests.

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

5.  Transformation of sound pressure level from the free field to the eardrum in the horizontal plane.

Authors:  E A Shaw
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1974-12       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.

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

7.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise.

Authors:  M Nilsson; S D Soli; J A Sullivan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences.

Authors:  R Plomp; A M Mimpen
Journal:  Audiology       Date:  1979 Jan-Feb

9.  Speech recognition abilities of adults using cochlear implants with FM systems.

Authors:  Erin C Schafer; Linda M Thibodeau
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.664

10.  Optimizing dynamic range in children using the nucleus cochlear implant.

Authors:  P W Dawson; J A Decker; C E Psarros
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  35 in total

1.  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

2.  [A sound reproduction system using wave field synthesis to simulate everyday listening conditions].

Authors:  T Weißgerber
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Contribution of formant frequency information to vowel perception in steady-state noise by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Elad Sagi; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Voice gender and the segregation of competing talkers: Perceptual learning in cochlear implant simulations.

Authors:  Jessica R Sullivan; Peter F Assmann; Shaikat Hossain; Erin C Schafer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Benefit of the UltraZoom beamforming technology in noise in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Isabelle Mosnier; Nathalie Mathias; Jonathan Flament; Dorith Amar; Amelie Liagre-Callies; Stephanie Borel; Emmanuèle Ambert-Dahan; Olivier Sterkers; Daniele Bernardeschi
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  An examination of speech reception thresholds measured in a simulated reverberant cafeteria environment.

Authors:  Virginia Best; Gitte Keidser; Jörg M Buchholz; Katrina Freeston
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 2.117

7.  N-Myc and L-Myc are essential for hair cell formation but not maintenance.

Authors:  Benjamin J Kopecky; Rhonda Decook; Bernd Fritzsch
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 3.252

8.  Effect of Microphone Configuration and Sound Source Location on Speech Recognition for Adult Cochlear Implant Users with Current-Generation Sound Processors.

Authors:  Robert T Dwyer; Jillian Roberts; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2020-04-27       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  Cochlear implant microphone location affects speech recognition in diffuse noise.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Kolberg; Sterling W Sheffield; Timothy J Davis; Linsey W Sunderhaus; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 1.664

10.  Postlingual adult performance in noise with HiRes 120 and ClearVoice Low, Medium, and High.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Christine Brenner; Ruth M Reeder; Jill B Firszt
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2013-05-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.