Literature DB >> 26905529

The Effects of Preprocessing Strategies for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Bernadette Rakszawski1,2, Rose Wright2,3, Jamie H Cadieux2, Lisa S Davidson1,4, Christine Brenner4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cochlear implants (CIs) have been shown to improve children's speech recognition over traditional amplification when severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss is present. Despite improvements, understanding speech at low-level intensities or in the presence of background noise remains difficult. In an effort to improve speech understanding in challenging environments, Cochlear Ltd. offers preprocessing strategies that apply various algorithms before mapping the signal to the internal array. Two of these strategies include Autosensitivity Control™ (ASC) and Adaptive Dynamic Range Optimization (ADRO(®)). Based on the previous research, the manufacturer's default preprocessing strategy for pediatrics' everyday programs combines ASC + ADRO(®).
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare pediatric speech perception performance across various preprocessing strategies while applying a specific programming protocol using increased threshold levels to ensure access to very low-level sounds. RESEARCH
DESIGN: This was a prospective, cross-sectional, observational study. Participants completed speech perception tasks in four preprocessing conditions: no preprocessing, ADRO(®), ASC, and ASC + ADRO(®). STUDY SAMPLE: Eleven pediatric Cochlear Ltd. CI users were recruited: six bilateral, one unilateral, and four bimodal. INTERVENTION: Four programs, with the participants' everyday map, were loaded into the processor with different preprocessing strategies applied in each of the four programs: no preprocessing, ADRO(®), ASC, and ASC + ADRO(®). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Participants repeated consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) words presented at 50 and 70 dB SPL in quiet and Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentences presented adaptively with competing R-Space(TM) noise at 60 and 70 dB SPL. Each measure was completed as participants listened with each of the four preprocessing strategies listed above. Test order and conditions were randomized. A repeated-measures analysis of was used to compare each preprocessing strategy for the group. Critical differences were used to determine significant score differences between each preprocessing strategy for individual participants.
RESULTS: For CNC words presented at 50 dB SPL, the group data revealed significantly better scores using ASC + ADRO(®) compared to all other preprocessing conditions while ASC resulted in poorer scores compared to ADRO(®) and ASC + ADRO(®). Group data for HINT sentences presented in 70 dB SPL of R-Space(TM) noise revealed significantly improved scores using ASC and ASC + ADRO(®) compared to no preprocessing, with ASC + ADRO(®) scores being better than ADRO(®) alone scores. Group data for CNC words presented at 70 dB SPL and adaptive HINT sentences presented in 60 dB SPL of R-Space(TM) noise showed no significant difference among conditions. Individual data showed that the preprocessing strategy yielding the best scores varied across measures and participants.
CONCLUSIONS: Group data reveal an advantage with ASC + ADRO(®) for speech perception presented at lower levels and in higher levels of background noise. Individual data revealed that the optimal preprocessing strategy varied among participants, indicating that a variety of preprocessing strategies should be explored for each CI user considering his or her performance in challenging listening environments. American Academy of Audiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26905529      PMCID: PMC4839530          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.14058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  39 in total

1.  Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant.

Authors:  M W Skinner; L K Holden; T A Holden; M E Demorest
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Comparison of EAP thresholds with MAP levels in the nucleus 24 cochlear implant: data from children.

Authors:  M L Hughes; C J Brown; P J Abbas; A A Wolaver; J P Gervais
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Factors contributing to speech perception scores in long-term pediatric cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Lisa S Davidson; Ann E Geers; Peter J Blamey; Emily A Tobey; Christine A Brenner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  The effects of audibility and novel word learning ability on vocabulary level in children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Lisa S Davidson; Ann E Geers; Johanna G Nicholas
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2013-11-25

5.  A digital processing strategy to optimize hearing aid outputs directly.

Authors:  Peter J Blamey; Lois F A Martin; Hayley J Fiket
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.664

6.  Critical difference table for word recognition testing derived using computer simulation.

Authors:  Edward Carney; Robert S Schlauch
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  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

8.  Improving speech perception in noise for children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Amy P Olund; Melissa Dejong
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  The effect of instantaneous input dynamic range setting on the speech perception of children with the nucleus 24 implant.

Authors:  Lisa S Davidson; Margaret W Skinner; Beth A Holstad; Beverly T Fears; Marie K Richter; Margaret Matusofsky; Christine Brenner; Timothy Holden; Amy Birath; Jerrica L Kettel; Susan Scollie
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Effects of presentation level on phoneme and sentence recognition in quiet by cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Gail S Donaldson; Shanna L Allen
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  2 in total

1.  Speech Understanding in Noise for Adults With Cochlear Implants: Effects of Hearing Configuration, Source Location Certainty, and Head Movement.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Louise Loiselle; Sarah Natale; Sterling W Sheffield; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Mary S Dietrich; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Impacts of signal processing factors on perceptual restoration in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Brittany N Jaekel; Sarah Weinstein; Rochelle S Newman; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 2.482

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.