Literature DB >> 24225651

Effects of site-specific level adjustments on speech recognition with cochlear implants.

Ning Zhou1, Bryan E Pfingst.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Modulation detection thresholds (MDTs) vary across stimulation sites in a cochlear implant (CI) electrode array in a manner that is subject and ear specific. Previous studies have demonstrated that speech recognition with a CI can be improved by site-selection strategies, where selected stimulation sites with poor modulation sensitivity are removed from a subject's processor MAP. Limitations of site-selection strategies are that they can compromise spectral resolution and distort frequency-place mapping because the frequencies assigned to the removed sites are usually reallocated to other sites, and site bandwidths are broadened. The objective of the present study was to test an alternative approach for rehabilitation that aimed at improving the across-site mean MDTs by adjusting stimulation parameters at the poorly performing sites. On the basis of previous findings that modulation detection contributes to speech recognition and improves significantly with stimulus level, the authors hypothesized that modulation sensitivity at the poor sites could be improved by artificially increasing stimulation levels at those sites in the speech processor, which then would lead to improved speech recognition.
DESIGN: Nine postlingually deafened ears implanted with Nucleus CIs were evaluated for MDTs, absolute-detection threshold levels (T levels), and the maximum loudness levels (C levels) on each of the available stimulation sites. For each ear, the minimum stimulation level settings in the speech-processor MAP were raised by 5%, and alternatively by 10%, of the dynamic range (DR) from true thresholds on five stimulation sites with the poorest MDTs. For comparison, a 5% level raise was applied globally to all stimulation sites. The C levels were fixed during these level manipulations. MDTs at the five poorest stimulation sites were compared at 20% DR before and after the level adjustments. Speech-reception thresholds (SRTs), that is, signal to noise ratios required for 50% correct speech recognition, were evaluated for these MAPs using CUNY sentences. The site-specific level-adjusted MAPs were compared with the global-level-adjusted MAP and the MAP without level adjustment. The effects on speech recognition of adjusting the minimal stimulation level settings on the five poorest stimulation sites were also compared with effects of removing these sites from the speech-processor MAP.
RESULTS: The 5% level increase on the five electrodes with the worst MDTs resulted in an improvement in the group mean SRT of 2.36 dB SNR relative to the MAP without level adjustment. The magnitude of level increase that resulted in the greatest SRT improvement for individuals varied across ears. MDTs measured at 20% DR significantly improved on the poor sites after the level adjustment that resulted in the best SRT for that ear was applied. Increasing the minimal stimulation levels on all stimulation sites or removing sites selected for rehabilitation, the parsimonious approaches, did not improve SRTs.
CONCLUSIONS: The site-specific adjustments of the T level settings improved modulation sensitivity at low levels and significantly improved subjects' SRTs. Thus, this site-rehabilitation strategy was an effective alternative to site-selection strategies for improving speech recognition in CI users.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24225651      PMCID: PMC3872508          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31829d15cc

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  36 in total

1.  Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues.

Authors:  R V Shannon; F G Zeng; J Wygonski
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Effects of stimulus level on electrode-place discrimination in human subjects with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B E Pfingst; L A Holloway; T A Zwolan; L M Collins
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Across-site threshold variation in cochlear implants: relation to speech recognition.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Li Xu; Catherine S Thompson
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2004-10-01       Impact factor: 1.854

4.  Loudness growth in cochlear implants: effect of stimulation rate and electrode configuration.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Effects of stimulation rate, mode and level on modulation detection by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-09

6.  Psychophysical metrics and speech recognition in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Li Xu
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2005-08-05       Impact factor: 1.854

7.  Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Effects of carrier pulse rate and stimulation site on modulation detection by subjects with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Li Xu; Catherine S Thompson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Open set speech perception with auditory brainstem implant?

Authors:  Vittorio Colletti; Robert V Shannon
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 3.325

10.  Long-term sensorineural hearing loss induces functional changes in the rat auditory nerve.

Authors:  Robert K Shepherd; Lloyd A Roberts; Antonio G Paolini
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.386

View more
  13 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  The effect of presentation level and stimulation rate on speech perception and modulation detection for cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Tim Brochier; Hugh J McDermott; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Band importance functions of listeners with cochlear implants using clinical maps.

Authors:  Adam K Bosen; Monita Chatterjee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Relationships Among Peripheral and Central Electrophysiological Measures of Spatial and Spectral Selectivity and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Rachel A Scheperle; Paul J Abbas
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Across-site patterns of electrically evoked compound action potential amplitude-growth functions in multichannel cochlear implant recipients and the effects of the interphase gap.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-08-10       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Assessing the Relationship Between the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential and Speech Recognition Abilities in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Using the electrically-evoked compound action potential (ECAP) interphase gap effect to select electrode stimulation sites in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Teresa A Zwolan; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 3.672

10.  Individual Variability in Recalibrating to Spectrally Shifted Speech: Implications for Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Michael L Smith; Matthew B Winn
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.