Literature DB >> 33356927

Evaluation of an Adaptive Dynamic Compensation System in Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Florian Langner1, Andreas Büchner1, Waldo Nogueira1.   

Abstract

Cochlear implant (CI) sound processing typically uses a front-end automatic gain control (AGC), reducing the acoustic dynamic range (DR) to control the output level and protect the signal processing against large amplitude changes. It can also introduce distortions into the signal and does not allow a direct mapping between acoustic input and electric output. For speech in noise, a reduction in DR can result in lower speech intelligibility due to compressed modulations of speech. This study proposes to implement a CI signal processing scheme consisting of a full acoustic DR with adaptive properties to improve the signal-to-noise ratio and overall speech intelligibility. Measurements based on the Short-Time Objective Intelligibility measure and an electrodogram analysis, as well as behavioral tests in up to 10 CI users, were used to compare performance with a single-channel, dual-loop, front-end AGC and with an adaptive back-end multiband dynamic compensation system (Voice Guard [VG]). Speech intelligibility in quiet and at a +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio was assessed with the Hochmair-Schulz-Moser sentence test. A logatome discrimination task with different consonants was performed in quiet. Speech intelligibility was significantly higher in quiet for VG than for AGC, but intelligibility was similar in noise. Participants obtained significantly better scores with VG than AGC in the logatome discrimination task. The objective measurements predicted significantly better performance estimates for VG. Overall, a dynamic compensation system can outperform a single-stage compression (AGC + linear compression) for speech perception in quiet.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cochlear implants; compression; dynamic range; speech intelligibility

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33356927      PMCID: PMC7887680          DOI: 10.1177/2331216520970349

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Hear        ISSN: 2331-2165            Impact factor:   3.293


  30 in total

1.  Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids.

Authors:  M A Stone; B C Moore; J I Alcántara; B R Glasberg
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels.

Authors:  G A Studebaker; R L Sherbecoe; D M McDaniel; C A Gwaltney
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Relative contribution to speech intelligibility of different envelope modulation rates within the speech dynamic range.

Authors:  Michael A Stone; Christian Füllgrabe; Brian C J Moore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B S Wilson; C C Finley; D T Lawson; R D Wolford; D K Eddington; W M Rabinowitz
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1991-07-18       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users.

Authors:  I Hochmair-Desoyer; E Schulz; L Moser; M Schmidt
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1997-11

6.  Mechanisms of vowel recognition for Ineraid patients fit with continuous interleaved sampling processors.

Authors:  M F Dorman; P C Loizou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Predicting Speech Recognition Using the Speech Intelligibility Index and Other Variables for Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Sungmin Lee; Lisa Lucks Mendel; Gavin M Bidelman
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Performance of patients using different cochlear implant systems: effects of input dynamic range.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman; Louise H Loiselle
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Optimizing dynamic range in children using the nucleus cochlear implant.

Authors:  P W Dawson; J A Decker; C E Psarros
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Quantifying the effects of fast-acting compression on the envelope of speech.

Authors:  Michael A Stone; Brian C J Moore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  1 in total

1.  Listening to Music Through Hearing Aids: Potential Lessons for Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Brian C J Moore
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.496

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.