Literature DB >> 30987476

Effect of signal processing strategy and stimulation type on speech and auditory perception in adult cochlear implant users.

Susan M Reynolds1, René H Gifford1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of signal processing strategy on speech understanding and auditory function for adult cochlear implant (CI) users with a focus on the effects of sequential versus paired stimulation.
DESIGN: Within-subjects, repeated measures design was utilised to compare performance between processing strategies and stimulation type on various measures of auditory function and subjective sound quality. Testing with subsequent strategies was completed after a total familiarisation time of two weeks. STUDY SAMPLE: Ten post-lingually deafened adult CI users were recruited from a clinical population. Participants had a minimum of 13 months CI experience. Ages ranged from 25-78 years. All participants had long-term experience with the optima strategy; eight with sequential stimulation and two with paired stimulation.
RESULTS: We found no statistically significant effect of processing strategy. We observed an effect of stimulation type with sequential stimulation yielding significantly higher performance than paired stimulation for speech understanding in quiet and in noise, and subjective estimates of sound quality. No significant differences were noted across strategy or stimulation for music perception, spectral resolution or temporal resolution.
CONCLUSIONS: Many patients utilise paired stimulation - the default stimulation type in the clinical software; however, sequential stimulation yielded significantly higher outcomes on multiple measures.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear implants; music perception; programming; signal processing; sound quality; spectral resolution; speech recognition; temporal resolution

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30987476      PMCID: PMC6506357          DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1580390

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Audiol        ISSN: 1499-2027            Impact factor:   2.117


  59 in total

1.  Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.

Authors:  L M Friesen; R V Shannon; D Baskent; X Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 2.  Signal coding in cochlear implants: exploiting stochastic effects of electrical stimulation.

Authors:  Jay T Rubinstein; Robert Hong
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  2003-09

3.  Place-pitch discrimination of single- versus dual-electrode stimuli by cochlear implant users (L).

Authors:  Gail S Donaldson; Heather A Kreft; Leonid Litvak
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Evaluation of the Harmony soundprocessor in combination with the speech coding strategy HiRes 120.

Authors:  Martina Brendel; Andreas Buechner; Beate Krueger; Carolin Frohne-Buechner; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Comparison of dual-time-constant and fast-acting automatic gain control (AGC) systems in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Patrick J Boyle; Andreas Büchner; Michael A Stone; Thomas Lenarz; Brian C J Moore
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.117

6.  Two-microphone spatial filtering provides speech reception benefits for cochlear implant users in difficult acoustic environments.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy; Lorraine A Delhorne; Joseph G Desloge; Louis D Braida
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Enhanced hearing in noise for cochlear implant recipients: clinical trial results for a commercially available speech-enhancement strategy.

Authors:  Dawn Burton Koch; Andrew Quick; Mary Joe Osberger; Aniket Saoji; Leonid Litvak
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects.

Authors:  B Townshend; N Cotter; D Van Compernolle; R L White
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Optimizing the number of electrodes with high-rate stimulation of the clarion CII cochlear implant.

Authors:  Johan H M Frijns; W Martin C Klop; Raymond M Bonnet; Jeroen J Briaire
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 1.494

10.  Clinical evaluation of music perception, appraisal and experience in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ward R Drennan; Jacob J Oleson; Kate Gfeller; Jillian Crosson; Virginia D Driscoll; Jong Ho Won; Elizabeth S Anderson; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 2.117

View more
  4 in total

1.  Bimodal Benefit for Music Perception: Effect of Acoustic Bandwidth.

Authors:  Kristen L D'Onofrio; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-03-30       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Listening Effort in Young Children with Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Amanda Saksida; Sara Ghiselli; Stefano Bembich; Alessandro Scorpecci; Sara Giannantonio; Alessandra Resca; Pasquale Marsella; Eva Orzan
Journal:  Audiol Res       Date:  2021-12-21

3.  The Relationship Between Impedance, Programming and Word Recognition in a Large Clinical Dataset of Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Benjamin Caswell-Midwinter; Elizabeth M Doney; Meisam K Arjmandi; Kelly N Jahn; Barbara S Herrmann; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

4.  Musical Emotion Perception in Bimodal Patients: Relative Weighting of Musical Mode and Tempo Cues.

Authors:  Kristen L D'Onofrio; Meredith Caldwell; Charles Limb; Spencer Smith; David M Kessler; René H Gifford
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 4.677

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.