Literature DB >> 26656190

Interleaved Processors Improve Cochlear Implant Patients' Spectral Resolution.

Justin M Aronoff1, Julia Stelmach, Monica Padilla, David M Landsberger.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Cochlear implant patients have difficulty in noisy environments, in part, because of channel interaction. Interleaving the signal by sending every other channel to the opposite ear has the potential to reduce channel interaction by increasing the space between channels in each ear. Interleaving still potentially provides the same amount of spectral information when the two ears are combined. Although this method has been successful in other populations such as hearing aid users, interleaving with cochlear implant patients has not yielded consistent benefits. This may be because perceptual misalignment between the two ears, and the spacing between stimulation locations must be taken into account before interleaving.
DESIGN: Eight bilateral cochlear implant users were tested. After perceptually aligning the two ears, 12-channel maps were made that spanned the entire aligned portions of the array. Interleaved maps were created by removing every other channel from each ear. Participants' spectral resolution and localization abilities were measured with perceptually aligned processing strategies both with and without interleaving.
RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in spectral resolution with interleaving. However, there was no significant effect of interleaving on localization abilities.
CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that interleaving can improve cochlear implant users' spectral resolution. However, it may be necessary to perceptually align the two ears and/or use relatively large spacing between stimulation locations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26656190      PMCID: PMC4767634          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000249

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


  36 in total

1.  On the number of channels needed to understand speech.

Authors:  P C Loizou; M Dorman; Z Tu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Place-pitch discrimination of single- versus dual-electrode stimuli by cochlear implant users (L).

Authors:  Gail S Donaldson; Heather A Kreft; Leonid Litvak
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Ward R Drennan; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-06-21

4.  Current steering creates additional pitch percepts in adult cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Jill B Firszt; Dawn Burton Koch; Mark Downing; Leonid Litvak
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Perception of across-frequency interaural level differences.

Authors:  Tom Francart; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Electrophysiological spread of excitation and pitch perception for dual and single electrodes using the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant.

Authors:  Peter A Busby; Rolf D Battmer; Joerg Pesch
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Binaural speech unmasking and localization in noise with bilateral cochlear implants using envelope and fine-timing based strategies.

Authors:  Richard van Hoesel; Melanie Böhm; Jörg Pesch; Andrew Vandali; Rolf D Battmer; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor.

Authors:  K E Fishman; R V Shannon; W H Slattery
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 2.297

9.  Virtual channel discrimination is improved by current focusing in cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Arthi G Srinivasan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-04-19       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure.

Authors:  Christian Lorenzi; Gaëtan Gilbert; Héloïse Carn; Stéphane Garnier; Brian C J Moore
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-11-20       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  13 in total

1.  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

2.  Pitch Matching Adapts Even for Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users with Relatively Small Initial Pitch Differences Across the Ears.

Authors:  Justin M Aronoff; Hannah E Staisloff; Abbigail Kirchner; Daniel H Lee; Julia Stelmach
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-08-05

3.  Determining the minimum number of electrodes that need to be pitch matched to accurately estimate pitch matches across the array.

Authors:  Julia Stelmach; David M Landsberger; Monica Padilla; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2017-07-12       Impact factor: 2.117

4.  Influence of bilateral cochlear implants on vocal control.

Authors:  Abbigail Kirchner; Torrey M Loucks; Elizabeth Abbs; Kevin Shi; Jeff W Yu; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Loudness and pitch perception using Dynamically Compensated Virtual Channels.

Authors:  Waldo Nogueira; Leonid M Litvak; David M Landsberger; Andreas Büchner
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-12-07       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Changing stimulation patterns can change the broadness of contralateral masking functions for bilateral cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Daniel H Lee; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Perceptually aligning apical frequency regions leads to more binaural fusion of speech in a cochlear implant simulation.

Authors:  Hannah E Staisloff; Daniel H Lee; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Spectral-temporally modulated ripple test Lite for computeRless Measurement (SLRM): A Nonlinguistic Test for Audiology Clinics.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Natalia Stupak; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Clinically Paired Electrodes Are Often Not Perceived as Pitch Matched.

Authors:  Justin M Aronoff; Monica Padilla; Julia Stelmach; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-09-18       Impact factor: 3.293

10.  Perceptual Differences Between Low-Frequency Analog and Pulsatile Stimulation as Shown by Single- and Multidimensional Scaling.

Authors:  Natalia Stupak; Monica Padilla; Robert P Morse; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.