Literature DB >> 28806337

The Sound Quality of Cochlear Implants: Studies With Single-sided Deaf Patients.

Michael F Dorman1, Sarah Cook Natale, Austin M Butts, Daniel M Zeitler, Matthew L Carlson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present study was to assess the sound quality of a cochlear implant for single-sided deaf (SSD) patients fit with a cochlear implant (CI).
BACKGROUND: One of the fundamental, unanswered questions in CI research is "what does an implant sound like?" Conventional CI patients must use the memory of a clean signal, often decades old, to judge the sound quality of their CIs. In contrast, SSD-CI patients can rate the similarity of a clean signal presented to the CI ear and candidate, CI-like signals presented to the ear with normal hearing.
METHODS: For Experiment 1 four types of stimuli were created for presentation to the normal hearing ear: noise vocoded signals, sine vocoded signals, frequency shifted, sine vocoded signals and band-pass filtered, natural speech signals. Listeners rated the similarity of these signals to unmodified signals sent to the CI on a scale of 0 to 10 with 10 being a complete match to the CI signal. For Experiment 2 multitrack signal mixing was used to create natural speech signals that varied along multiple dimensions.
RESULTS: In Experiment 1 for eight adult SSD-CI listeners, the best median similarity rating to the sound of the CI for noise vocoded signals was 1.9; for sine vocoded signals 2.9; for frequency upshifted signals, 1.9; and for band pass filtered signals, 5.5. In Experiment 2 for three young listeners, combinations of band pass filtering and spectral smearing lead to ratings of 10.
CONCLUSION: The sound quality of noise and sine vocoders does not generally correspond to the sound quality of cochlear implants fit to SSD patients. Our preliminary conclusion is that natural speech signals that have been muffled to one degree or another by band pass filtering and/or spectral smearing provide a close, but incomplete, match to CI sound quality for some patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28806337      PMCID: PMC5606248          DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001449

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  19 in total

1.  Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing.

Authors:  Q J Fu; R V Shannon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs.

Authors:  M F Dorman; P C Loizou; D Rainey
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  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

4.  Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding.

Authors:  M F Dorman; P C Loizou; D Rainey
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Interaural level difference cues determine sound source localization by single-sided deaf patients fit with a cochlear implant.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Daniel Zeitler; Sarah J Cook; Louise Loiselle; William A Yost; George B Wanna; Rene H Gifford
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues.

Authors:  R V Shannon; F G Zeng; V Kamath; J Wygonski; M Ekelid
Journal:  Science       Date:  1995-10-13       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Sound Source Localization and Speech Understanding in Complex Listening Environments by Single-sided Deaf Listeners After Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Daniel M Zeitler; Michael F Dorman; Sarah J Natale; Louise Loiselle; William A Yost; Rene H Gifford
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  In vivo measures of cochlear length and insertion depth of nucleus cochlear implant electrode arrays.

Authors:  D R Ketten; M W Skinner; G Wang; M W Vannier; G A Gates; J G Neely
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  1998-11

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.  Spatial hearing disability after acoustic neuroma removal.

Authors:  Susan A Douglas; Phil Yeung; Anurag Daudia; Stuart Gatehouse; Gerard M O'Donoghue
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.325

View more
  15 in total

1.  Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness: A New Treatment Paradigm.

Authors:  Daniel M Zeitler; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  J Neurol Surg B Skull Base       Date:  2019-02-04

2.  Looking for Mickey Mouse™ But Finding a Munchkin: The Perceptual Effects of Frequency Upshifts for Single-Sided Deaf, Cochlear Implant Patients.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Sarah C Natale; Daniel M Zeitler; Leslie Baxter; Jack H Noble
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-08-15       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Valid Acoustic Models of Cochlear Implants: One Size Does Not Fit All.

Authors:  Mario A Svirsky; Nicole Hope Capach; Jonathan D Neukam; Mahan Azadpour; Elad Sagi; Ariel Edward Hight; E Katelyn Glassman; Annette Lavender; Keena P Seward; Margaret K Miller; Nai Ding; Chin-Tuan Tan; Matthew B Fitzgerald
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Reducing interaural tonotopic mismatch preserves binaural unmasking in cochlear implant simulations of single-sided deafness.

Authors:  Elad Sagi; Mahan Azadpour; Jonathan Neukam; Nicole Hope Capach; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2021-10       Impact factor: 2.482

5.  Cochlear Place of Stimulation Is One Determinant of Cochlear Implant Sound Quality.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Sarah Cook Natale; Leslie Baxter; Daniel M Zeitler; Mathew L Carlson; Jack H Noble
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  Music Is More Enjoyable With Two Ears, Even If One of Them Receives a Degraded Signal Provided By a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Katrien Vermeire; Natalia Stupak; Annette Lavender; Jonathan Neukam; Paul Van de Heyning; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.562

7.  Effects of Spectral Resolution and Frequency Mismatch on Speech Understanding and Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Bilateral Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Kevin Xu; Shelby Willis; Quinton Gopen; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.562

8.  Effects of Training on Lateralization for Simulations of Cochlear Implants and Single-Sided Deafness.

Authors:  Fei Yu; Hai Li; Xiaoqing Zhou; XiaoLin Tang; John J Galvin Iii; Qian-Jie Fu; Wei Yuan
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2018-07-17       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Searching for the Sound of a Cochlear Implant: Evaluation of Different Vocoder Parameters by Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness.

Authors:  Chadlia Karoui; Chris James; Pascal Barone; David Bakhos; Mathieu Marx; Olivier Macherey
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

10.  Pleasantness Ratings for Harmonic Intervals With Acoustic and Electric Hearing in Unilaterally Deaf Cochlear Implant Patients.

Authors:  Emily R Spitzer; David M Landsberger; David R Friedmann; John J Galvin
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 4.677

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.