Literature DB >> 22766835

Fine structure processing improves telephone speech perception in cochlear implant users.

Javier Galindo1, Luis Lassaletta, Rosa Pérez Mora, Alejandro Castro, Marta Bastarrica, Javier Gavilán.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare telephone speech perception and subjective preferences in cochlear implant users with two different speech-processing strategies: high-definition continuous interleaved sampling (HDCIS) and fine structure processing (FSP). A randomized double-blind study was designed for intra-individual comparison of HDCIS and FSP. Twenty-five post-lingually deafened patients with either the PulsarCI(100) or SonataTI(100) and Opus2 acoustic processor were tested consecutively with both coding strategies, assigned in a random order. Disyllabic word speech perception was tested 6 weeks after each fitting under the following conditions: landline use with (LWN) and without (LWoN) background noise, mobile use with (MWN), and without (MWoN) background noise and mobile use with a Bluetooth magnetic field transmitter necklace (MB). Changes in health-related quality of life (QoL) were assessed using the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and Faber's questionnaire. Personal preferences between strategies were surveyed upon completion of the study. All subjects included in this study performed better with FSP in the landline tests. There was an improvement of 11.5 % in LWN use (p = 0.014; CI 95 % = 3-20 %) and 10 % in LWoN use (p = 0.001; CI 95 % = 5-15 %). MWoN showed an improvement of 6.3 % with FSP (p = 0.03; CI 95 % = 0-13 %). MB tests showed an improvement of 11 % with FSP (p < 0.05; CI 95 % = 1.5-22 %). Quality of life was significantly better using FSP. Eighty-four percent of participants preferred FSP. The FSP speech coding strategy improved the speech recognition of cochlear implant users when using the telephone compared to HDCIS. Cochlear implantation with FSP coding improved QoL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22766835     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-012-2101-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  24 in total

1.  Cochlear implantation and change in quality of life.

Authors:  C E Faber; A M Grøntved
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol Suppl       Date:  2000

2.  A phone-assistive device based on Bluetooth technology for cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Haifeng Qian; Philipos C Loizou; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.802

3.  Better speech recognition in noise with the fine structure processing coding strategy.

Authors:  Katrien Vermeire; Andrea Kleine Punte; Paul Van de Heyning
Journal:  ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 1.538

4.  Fine Structure Processing improves speech perception as well as objective and subjective benefits in pediatric MED-EL COMBI 40+ users.

Authors:  Artur Lorens; Małgorzata Zgoda; Anita Obrycka; Henryk Skarżynski
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-10-08       Impact factor: 1.675

5.  Telephone use: what benefit do cochlear implant users receive?

Authors:  Ilona Anderson; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Klaus Böheim; Alexander Nahler; Christoph Arnoldner; Christoph Arnolder; Patrick D'Haese
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.117

6.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B S Wilson; C C Finley; D T Lawson; R D Wolford; D K Eddington; W M Rabinowitz
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1991-07-18       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 7.  From electric acoustic stimulation to improved sound coding in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Peter Nopp; Marek Polak
Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-11-25

8.  A new fine structure speech coding strategy: speech perception at a reduced number of channels.

Authors:  Dominik Riss; Christoph Arnoldner; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Alexandra Kaider; Jafar-Sasan Hamzavi
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Telephone use by a multi-channel cochlear implant patient. An evaluation using open-set CID sentences.

Authors:  A M Brown; G M Clark; R C Dowell; L F Martin; P M Seligman
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 1.469

10.  Quality of life in hearing-impaired adults: the role of cochlear implants and hearing aids.

Authors:  Seth M Cohen; Robert F Labadie; Mary S Dietrich; David S Haynes
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.497

View more
  5 in total

1.  Effects of hearing loss on the subcortical representation of speech cues.

Authors:  Samira Anderson; Alexandra Parbery-Clark; Travis White-Schwoch; Sarah Drehobl; Nina Kraus
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Using the HISQUI29 to assess the sound quality levels of Spanish adults with unilateral cochlear implants and no contralateral hearing.

Authors:  Miryam Calvino; Javier Gavilán; Isabel Sánchez-Cuadrado; Rosa M Pérez-Mora; Elena Muñoz; Jesús Díez-Sebastián; Luis Lassaletta
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  The effect of internet telephony and a cochlear implant accessory on mobile phone speech comprehension in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Markus E Huth; Regula L Boschung; Marco D Caversaccio; Wilhelm Wimmer; Mantokoudis Georgios
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-04-24       Impact factor: 3.236

4.  Influence of Telecommunication Modality, Internet Transmission Quality, and Accessories on Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Georgios Mantokoudis; Roger Koller; Jérémie Guignard; Marco Caversaccio; Martin Kompis; Pascal Senn
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 5.  The Glasgow Benefit Inventory: a systematic review of the use and value of an otorhinolaryngological generic patient-recorded outcome measure.

Authors:  J Hendry; A Chin; I R C Swan; M A Akeroyd; G G Browning
Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-07       Impact factor: 2.597

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.