OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide guidelines to optimize perception of soft speech and speech in noise for Advanced Bionics cochlear implant (CI) users. DESIGN: Three programs differing in T-levels were created for ten subjects. Using the T-level setting that provided the lowest FM-tone, sound-field threshold levels for each subject, three additional programs were created with input dynamic range (IDR) settings of 50, 65 and 80 dB. STUDY SAMPLE: Subjects were postlinguistically deaf adults implanted with either the Clarion CII or 90K CI devices. RESULTS: Sound-field threshold levels were lowest with T-levels set higher than 10% of M-levels and with the two widest IDRs. Group data revealed significantly higher scores for CNC words presented at a soft level with an IDR of 80 dB and 65 dB compared to 50 dB. Although no significant group differences were seen between the three IDRs for sentences in noise, significant individual differences were present. CONCLUSIONS: Setting Ts higher than the manufacturer's recommendation of 10% of M-levels and providing IDR options can improve overall speech perception; however, for some users, higher Ts and wider IDRs may not be appropriate. Based on the results of the study, clinical programming recommendations are provided.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide guidelines to optimize perception of soft speech and speech in noise for Advanced Bionics cochlear implant (CI) users. DESIGN: Three programs differing in T-levels were created for ten subjects. Using the T-level setting that provided the lowest FM-tone, sound-field threshold levels for each subject, three additional programs were created with input dynamic range (IDR) settings of 50, 65 and 80 dB. STUDY SAMPLE: Subjects were postlinguistically deaf adults implanted with either the Clarion CII or 90K CI devices. RESULTS: Sound-field threshold levels were lowest with T-levels set higher than 10% of M-levels and with the two widest IDRs. Group data revealed significantly higher scores for CNC words presented at a soft level with an IDR of 80 dB and 65 dB compared to 50 dB. Although no significant group differences were seen between the three IDRs for sentences in noise, significant individual differences were present. CONCLUSIONS: Setting Ts higher than the manufacturer's recommendation of 10% of M-levels and providing IDR options can improve overall speech perception; however, for some users, higher Ts and wider IDRs may not be appropriate. Based on the results of the study, clinical programming recommendations are provided.
Authors: Fan-Gang Zeng; Ginger Grant; John Niparko; John Galvin; Robert Shannon; Jane Opie; Phil Segel Journal: J Acoust Soc Am Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: Chris J James; Margaret W Skinner; Lois F A Martin; Laura K Holden; Karyn L Galvin; Timothy A Holden; Lesley Whitford Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 3.570
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
Authors: Laura K Holden; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Noël Y Dwyer; Amy L Stein; Leo M Litvak Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2019 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Laura K Holden; Charles C Finley; Jill B Firszt; Timothy A Holden; Christine Brenner; Lisa G Potts; Brenda D Gotter; Sallie S Vanderhoof; Karen Mispagel; Gitry Heydebrand; Margaret W Skinner Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Theodore R McRackan; Ramya Balachandran; Grégoire S Blachon; Jason E Mitchell; Jack H Noble; Charles G Wright; J Michael Fitzpatrick; Benoit M Dawant; Robert F Labadie Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Floris Heutink; Berit M Verbist; Willem-Jan van der Woude; Tamara J Meulman; Jeroen J Briaire; Johan H M Frijns; Priya Vart; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Wendy J Huinck Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2021 July/Aug Impact factor: 3.562