Literature DB >> 30418283

Evaluation of a New Algorithm to Optimize Audibility in Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Laura K Holden1, Jill B Firszt1, Ruth M Reeder1, Noël Y Dwyer1, Amy L Stein2, Leo M Litvak2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: A positive relation between audibility and speech understanding has been established for cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Sound field thresholds of 20 dB HL across the frequency range provide CI users the opportunity to understand soft and very soft speech. However, programming the sound processor to attain good audibility can be time-consuming and difficult for some patients. To address these issues, Advanced Bionics (AB) developed the SoftVoice algorithm designed to remove system noise and thereby improve audibility of soft speech. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of SoftVoice in optimizing AB CI recipients' soft-speech perception.
DESIGN: Two studies were conducted. Study 1 had two phases, 1A and 1B. Sixteen adult, AB CI recipients participated in Study 1A. Acute testing was performed in the unilateral CI condition using a Harmony processor programmed with participants' everyday-use program (Everyday) and that same program but with SoftVoice implemented. Speech recognition measures were administered at several presentation levels in quiet (35 to 60 dB SPL) and in noise (60 dB SPL). In Study 1B, 10 of the participants compared Everyday and SoftVoice at home to obtain feedback regarding the use of SoftVoice in various environments. During Study 2, soft-speech perception was acutely measured with Everyday and SoftVoice for 10 participants using the Naida CI Q70 processor. Results with the Harmony (Study 1A) and Naida processors were compared. Additionally, Study 2 evaluated programming options for setting electrode threshold levels (T-levels or Ts) to improve the usability of SoftVoice in daily life.
RESULTS: Study 1A showed significantly higher scores with SoftVoice than Everyday at soft presentation levels (35, 40, 45, and 50 dB SPL) and no significant differences between programs at a conversational level (60 dB SPL) in quiet or in noise. After take-home experience with SoftVoice and Everyday (Study 1B), 5 of 10 participants reported preferring SoftVoice over Everyday; however, 6 reported bothersome environmental sound when listening with SoftVoice at home. Results of Study 2 indicated similar soft-speech perception between Harmony and Naida processors. Additionally, implementing SoftVoice with Ts at the manufacturer's default setting of 10% of Ms reduced reports of bothersome environmental sound during take-home experience; however, soft-speech perception was best with SoftVoice when Ts were behaviorally set above 10% of Ms.
CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that SoftVoice may be a potential tool for optimizing AB users' audibility and, in turn, soft-speech perception. To achieve optimal performance at soft levels and comfortable use in daily environments, setting Ts must be considered with SoftVoice. Future research should examine program parameters that may benefit soft-speech perception when used in combination with SoftVoice (e.g., increased input dynamic range).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30418283      PMCID: PMC6506395          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000680

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


  31 in total

1.  Optimization of programming parameters in children with the advanced bionics cochlear implant.

Authors:  Jacquelyn Baudhuin; Jamie Cadieux; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Jerrica L Maxson
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Jon K Shallop; Anna Mary Peterson
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Lexical effects on spoken word recognition by pediatric cochlear implant users.

Authors:  K I Kirk; D B Pisoni; M J Osberger
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants.

Authors:  M W Skinner; L K Holden; T A Holden; M E Demorest; M S Fourakis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Voice fundamental frequency as an auditory supplement to the speechreading of sentences.

Authors:  A Boothroyd; T Hnath-Chisolm; L Hanin; L Kishon-Rabin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise.

Authors:  M Nilsson; S D Soli; J A Sullivan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Subjective fatigue in children with hearing loss: some preliminary findings.

Authors:  Benjamin W Y Hornsby; Krystal Werfel; Stephen Camarata; Fred H Bess
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.493

8.  Results of a pilot study with a signal enhancement algorithm for HiRes 120 cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Andreas Buechner; Martina Brendel; Hilke Saalfeld; Leonid Litvak; Carolin Frohne-Buechner; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Listening Effort Measured in Adults with Normal Hearing and Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Ann E Perreau; Yu-Hsiang Wu; Bailey Tatge; Diana Irwin; Daniel Corts
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 1.664

Review 10.  Optimizing cochlear implant speech performance.

Authors:  Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  2003-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.