Literature DB >> 21817932

Envelope versus fine structure speech coding strategy: a crossover study.

Dominik Riss1, Jafar-Sasan Hamzavi, Andreas Selberherr, Alexandra Kaider, Michaela Blineder, Veronika Starlinger, Wolfgang Gstoettner, Christoph Arnoldner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The transmission of fine structure information to cochlear implant users is an expanding area of research. Previous studies comparing the fine structure processing (FSP) speech coding strategy to the envelope-based continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) strategy indicated improved speech perception when using the fine structure strategy. Those investigations were performed with an extended frequency spectrum in the low frequencies together with the fine structure strategy. The current study addresses the question whether these improvements are due to the presentation of fine structure per se or rather the extended frequency spectrum. Hence, this cross over study compares the two strategies using an identical frequency spectrum. STUDY
DESIGN: Randomized crossover study. PATIENTS: 31 patients were randomly assigned to two groups.
INTERVENTIONS: One group was fitted with a CIS map for 4 weeks, tested and subsequently fitted with a FSP map for 4 weeks. The other group followed the same pattern in reverse. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Test material consisted of sentence tests in noise, monosyllables in quiet and melody recognition.
RESULTS: No statistical significance was noted between the different speech coding strategies at an identical frequency spectrum.
CONCLUSION: This study shows that there is no difference in speech perception with FSP compared to CIS at an extended frequency spectrum. Therefore, the extended frequency spectrum in the low frequencies might explain a benefit of FSP observed in previous studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21817932     DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31822a97f4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  7 in total

1.  Dual-carrier processing to convey temporal fine structure cues: Implications for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Frédéric Apoux; Carla L Youngdahl; Sarah E Yoho; Eric W Healy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  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

3.  Comparison of two cochlear implant coding strategies on speech perception.

Authors:  Margaret T Dillon; Emily Buss; English R King; Ellen J Deres; Sarah N Obarowski; Meredith L Anderson; Marcia C Adunka
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2016-10-18

4.  Evaluating hearing performance with cochlear implants within the same patient using daily randomization and imaging-based fitting - The ELEPHANT study.

Authors:  L J G Lambriks; M van Hoof; J A Debruyne; M Janssen; J Chalupper; K A van der Heijden; J R Hof; C A Hellingman; E L J George; E M J Devocht
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  Reweighting of Binaural Localization Cues in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Maike Klingel; Bernhard Laback
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-11-23

Review 6.  Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Tobias Goehring
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-08-25

7.  A Preliminary Study of the Effects of Attentive Music Listening on Cochlear Implant Users' Speech Perception, Quality of Life, and Behavioral and Objective Measures of Frequency Change Detection.

Authors:  Gabrielle M Firestone; Kelli McGuire; Chun Liang; Nanhua Zhang; Chelsea M Blankenship; Jing Xiang; Fawen Zhang
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2020-03-31       Impact factor: 3.169

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.