Literature DB >> 22894220

Psychophysically based site selection coupled with dichotic stimulation improves speech recognition in noise with bilateral cochlear implants.

Ning Zhou1, Bryan E Pfingst.   

Abstract

The ability to perceive important features of electrical stimulation varies across stimulation sites within a multichannel implant. The aim of this study was to optimize speech processor MAPs for bilateral implant users by identifying and removing sites with poor psychophysical performance. The psychophysical assessment involved amplitude-modulation detection with and without a masker, and a channel interaction measure quantified as the elevation in modulation detection thresholds in the presence of the masker. Three experimental MAPs were created on an individual-subject basis using data from one of the three psychophysical measures. These experimental MAPs improved the mean psychophysical acuity across the electrode array and provided additional advantages such as increasing spatial separations between electrodes and/or preserving frequency resolution. All 8 subjects showed improved speech recognition in noise with one or more experimental MAPs over their everyday-use clinical MAP. For most subjects, phoneme and sentence recognition in noise were significantly improved by a dichotic experimental MAP that provided better mean psychophysical acuity, a balanced distribution of selected stimulation sites, and preserved frequency resolution. The site-selection strategies serve as useful tools for evaluating the importance of psychophysical acuities needed for good speech recognition in implant users.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22894220      PMCID: PMC3427365          DOI: 10.1121/1.4730907

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  50 in total

1.  Modulation masking in cochlear implant listeners: envelope versus tonotopic components.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Perceptual learning following changes in the frequency-to-electrode assignment with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; Robert V Shannon; John J Galvin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking.

Authors:  Lawrence T Cohen; Louise M Richardson; Elaine Saunders; Robert S C Cowan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Dichotic speech recognition in noise using reduced spectral cues.

Authors:  Philipos C Loizou; Arunvijay Mani; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 5.  Neural processing of amplitude-modulated sounds.

Authors:  P X Joris; C E Schreiner; A Rees
Journal:  Physiol Rev       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 37.312

6.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.

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

Review 7.  Auditory and linguistic processes in speech perception: inferences from six fusions in dichotic listening.

Authors:  J E Cutting
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1976-03       Impact factor: 8.934

8.  Relation of psychophysical data to histopathology in monkeys with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B E Pfingst; D Sutton; J M Miller; B A Bohne
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  1981 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.494

9.  Auditory prostheses research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man.

Authors:  D K Eddington; W H Dobelle; D E Brackmann; M G Mladejovsky; J L Parkin
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1978 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.547

10.  Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2002-09-16       Impact factor: 1.837

View more
  26 in total

1.  Assessment of Spectral and Temporal Resolution in Cochlear Implant Users Using Psychoacoustic Discrimination and Speech Cue Categorization.

Authors:  Matthew B Winn; Jong Ho Won; Il Joon Moon
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Deactivating cochlear implant electrodes to improve speech perception: A computational approach.

Authors:  Elad Sagi; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-10-19       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Comparison of the Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test With the Arizona Biomedical Institute Sentence Test in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Marshall Lawler; Jeffrey Yu; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 4.  Importance of cochlear health for implant function.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Ning Zhou; Deborah J Colesa; Melissa M Watts; Stefan B Strahl; Soha N Garadat; Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Cameron L Budenz; Yehoash Raphael; Teresa A Zwolan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-09-28       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Auditory performance of post-lingually deafened adult cochlear implant recipients using electrode deactivation based on postoperative cone beam CT images.

Authors:  Fabiana Danieli; Thomas Dermacy; Maria Stella Arantes do Amaral; Ana Cláudia Mirandola Barbosa Reis; Dan Gnansia; Miguel Angelo Hyppolito
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-06-25       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Integration of Pulse Trains in Humans and Guinea Pigs with Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Casey T Kraft; Deborah J Colesa; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-05-20

7.  Asymmetric temporal envelope encoding: Implications for within- and across-ear envelope comparison.

Authors:  Sean R Anderson; Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Temporal Modulation Detection Depends on Sharpness of Spatial Tuning.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Matthew Cadmus; Lixue Dong; Juliana Mathews
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-04-25

9.  The effect of interleaved filters on normal hearing listeners' perception of binaural cues.

Authors:  Justin M Aronoff; Akiko Amano-Kusumoto; Motokuni Itoh; Sigfrid D Soli
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Interleaved Processors Improve Cochlear Implant Patients' Spectral Resolution.

Authors:  Justin M Aronoff; Julia Stelmach; Monica Padilla; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.