Literature DB >> 31012771

Longitudinal effect of deactivating stimulation sites based on low-rate thresholds on speech recognition in cochlear implant users.

Ning Zhou1.   

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the current study was to examine the longitudinal effect of deactivating stimulation sites estimated to produce broad neural excitation on speech recognition. Design: Spatial patterns of neural excitation were estimated based on a previously established psychophysical measure, that is, detection threshold for low-rate pulse trains. Stimulation sites with relatively poor thresholds were deactivated in an experimental map. The acute effect was evaluated, in quiet and in noise, immediately after the experimental map was created (baseline), after the subjects practiced with the experimental map for two months (treatment), and after the subjects' daily map was switched back again to the clinical map for another two months (withdrawal). Study sample: Eight Cochlear Nucleus device users participated in the study.
Results: For both listening in noise and in quiet, the greatest effect of deactivation was observed after the subjects were given time to adapt to the new frequency allocations. The effect was comparable for listening in fluctuating and steady-state noises. All subjects benefited from deactivation for listening in noise, but subjects with greater variability in thresholds were more likely to benefit from deactivation for listening in quiet.
Conclusion: The benefit of electrode deactivation for speech recognition can increase with practice.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Low-rate thresholds; electrode deactivation; longitudinal effects; speech perception

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31012771      PMCID: PMC6935264          DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1601779

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


  35 in total

1.  A practical method of predicting the loudness of complex electrical stimuli.

Authors:  Colette M McKay; Katherine R Henshall; Rebecca J Farrell; Hugh J McDermott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers.

Authors:  Michael K Qin; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Forward masking in different cochlear implant systems.

Authors:  Colette Boëx; Maria-Izabel Kós; Marco Pelizzone
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; Geraldine Nogaki
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-04-22

5.  Psychophysical metrics and speech recognition in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Li Xu
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2005-08-05       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  Deactivating stimulation sites based on low-rate thresholds improves spectral ripple and speech reception thresholds in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ning Zhou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.

Authors:  Tobias Rader; Hugo Fastl; Uwe Baumann
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Arthi G Srinivasan; Monica Padilla; Robert V Shannon; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Factors Affecting Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients Implanted With a Perimodiolar Electrode Array Located in Scala Tympani.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Rosalie M Uchanski; Noël Y Dwyer; Timothy A Holden
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  Monopolar Detection Thresholds Predict Spatial Selectivity of Neural Excitation in Cochlear Implants: Implications for Speech Recognition.

Authors:  Ning Zhou
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  3 in total

1.  Forward masking patterns by low and high-rate stimulation in cochlear implant users: Differences in masking effectiveness and spread of neural excitation.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Lixue Dong; Susannah Dixon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2020-02-15       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  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

3.  Effect of pulse phase duration on forward masking and spread of excitation in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Zhen Zhu; Lixue Dong; John J Galvin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.