Margaret T Dillon1, Emily Buss1, English R King2, Ellen J Deres2, Sarah N Obarowski3, Meredith L Anderson1, Marcia C Adunka2. 1. a Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery , University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , USA. 2. b Department of Audiology , UNC Health Care , Chapel Hill , USA. 3. c Department of Allied Health Sciences, Division of Speech and Hearing , University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assess whether differences in speech perception are observed after exclusive listening experience with high-definition continuous interleaved sampling (HDCIS) versus fine structure processing (FSP) coding strategies. METHODS: Subjects were randomly assigned at initial activation of the external speech processor to receive the HDCIS or FSP coding strategy. Frequency filter assignments were consistent across subjects. The speech perception test battery included CNC words in quiet, HINT sentences in quiet and steady noise (+10 dB SNR), AzBio sentences in quiet and a 10-talker babble (+10 dB SNR), and BKB-SIN. Assessment intervals included 1, 3, and 6 months post-activation. RESULTS: Data from 22 subjects (11 with HDCIS and 11 with FSP) were assessed over time. Speech perception performance was not significantly different between groups. DISCUSSION: Speech perception performance was not significantly different after 6 months of listening experience with the HDCIS or FSP coding strategy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Assess whether differences in speech perception are observed after exclusive listening experience with high-definition continuous interleaved sampling (HDCIS) versus fine structure processing (FSP) coding strategies. METHODS: Subjects were randomly assigned at initial activation of the external speech processor to receive the HDCIS or FSP coding strategy. Frequency filter assignments were consistent across subjects. The speech perception test battery included CNC words in quiet, HINT sentences in quiet and steady noise (+10 dB SNR), AzBio sentences in quiet and a 10-talker babble (+10 dB SNR), and BKB-SIN. Assessment intervals included 1, 3, and 6 months post-activation. RESULTS: Data from 22 subjects (11 with HDCIS and 11 with FSP) were assessed over time. Speech perception performance was not significantly different between groups. DISCUSSION: Speech perception performance was not significantly different after 6 months of listening experience with the HDCIS or FSP coding strategy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cochlear implant; Processing strategy; Signal coding strategy; Speech perception
Authors: J Kiefer; J Müller; T Pfennigdorff; F Schön; J Helms; C von Ilberg; W Baumgartner; W Gstöttner; K Ehrenberger; W Arnold; K Stephan; W Thumfart; S Baur Journal: ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec Date: 1996 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.538
Authors: L J G Lambriks; M van Hoof; J A Debruyne; M Janssen; J Chalupper; K A van der Heijden; J R Hof; C A Hellingman; E L J George; E M J Devocht Journal: Trials Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 2.279