Literature DB >> 30396747

Deactivating cochlear implant electrodes to improve speech perception: A computational approach.

Elad Sagi1, Mario A Svirsky2.   

Abstract

A potential bottleneck to improving speech perception performance in cochlear implant (CI) users is that some of their electrodes may poorly encode speech information. Several studies have examined the effect of deactivating poorly encoding electrodes on speech perception with mixed results. Many of these studies focused on identifying poorly encoding electrodes by some measure (e.g. electrode discrimination, pitch ordering, threshold, CT-guided, masked modulation detection), but provide inconsistent criteria about which electrodes, and how many, should be deactivated, and without considering how speech information becomes distributed across the electrode array. The present simulation study addresses this issue using computational approaches. Previously validated models were used to generate predictions of speech scores as a function of all possible combinations of active electrodes in a 22-electrode array in three groups of hypothetical subjects representative of relatively better, moderate, and poorer performing CI users. Using high-performance computing, over 500 million predictions were generated. Although deactivation of the poorest encoding electrodes sometimes resulted in predicted benefit, this benefit was significantly less relative to predictions resulting from model-optimized deactivations. This trend persisted when using novel stimuli (i.e. other than those used for optimization) and when using different processing strategies. Optimum electrode deactivation patterns produced an average predicted increase in word scores of 10% with some scores increasing by more than 20%. Optimum electrode deactivation patterns typically included 11 to 19 (out of 22) active electrodes, depending on the performance group. Optimal active electrode combinations were those that maximized discrimination of speech cues, maintaining 80%-100% of the physical span of the array. The present study demonstrates the potential for further improving CI users' speech scores with appropriate selection of active electrodes.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear implants; Computational modeling; Electrode deactivation

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30396747      PMCID: PMC6248869          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2018.10.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  33 in total

1.  Mathematical modeling of vowel perception by users of analog multichannel cochlear implants: temporal and channel-amplitude cues.

Authors:  M A Svirsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Relations among different measures of speech reception in subjects using a cochlear implant.

Authors:  W M Rabinowitz; D K Eddington; L A Delhorne; P A Cuneo
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Psychophysically based site selection coupled with dichotic stimulation improves speech recognition in noise with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  A model of incomplete adaptation to a severely shifted frequency-to-electrode mapping by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Elad Sagi; Qian-Jie Fu; John J Galvin; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-09-23

5.  Fitting prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users based on electrode discrimination performance.

Authors:  Joke A Debruyne; Tom Francart; A Miranda L Janssen; Kim Douma; Jan P L Brokx
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 2.117

6.  Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition.

Authors:  A Boothroyd; S Nittrouer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Derivation of frequency importance functions for the AzBio sentences.

Authors:  Sungmin Lee; Lisa Lucks Mendel
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels.

Authors:  J Hillenbrand; L A Getty; M J Clark; K Wheeler
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Charles C Finley; Jill B Firszt; Timothy A Holden; Christine Brenner; Lisa G Potts; Brenda D Gotter; Sallie S Vanderhoof; Karen Mispagel; Gitry Heydebrand; Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Factors that influence outcomes in cochlear implantation in adults, based on patient-related characteristics - a retrospective study.

Authors:  V J C Kraaijenga; A L Smit; I Stegeman; J J M Smilde; G A van Zanten; W Grolman
Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 2.597

View more
  1 in total

1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.