Literature DB >> 33514127

An evaluation framework for research platforms to advance cochlear implant/hearing aid technology: A case study with CCi-MOBILE.

Ram C M C Shekar1, John H L Hansen1.   

Abstract

Cochlear implants (CIs) and hearing aids (HAs) are advanced assistive hearing devices that perform sound processing to achieve acoustic to acoustic/electrical stimulation, thus enabling the prospects for hearing restoration and rehabilitation. Since commercial CIs/HAs are typically constrained by manufacturer design/production constraints, it is necessary for researchers to use research platforms (RPs) to advance algorithms and conduct investigational studies with CI/HA subjects. While previous CI/HA research platforms exist, no study has explored establishing a formal evaluation protocol for the operational safety and reliability of RPs. This study proposes a two-phase analysis and evaluation paradigm for RPs. In the acoustic phase 1 step, a signal processing acoustic space is explored in order to present a sampled set of audio input content to explore the safety of the resulting output electric/acoustic stimulation. In the parameter phase 2 step, the configurable space for realizable electrical stimulation pulses is determined, and overall stimulation reliability and safety are evaluated. The proposed protocol is applied and demonstrated using Costakis Cochlear Implant Mobile. Assessment protocol observations, results, and additional best practices for subsampling of the acoustic and parameter test spaces are discussed. The proposed analysis-evaluation protocol establishes a viable framework for assessing RP operational safety and reliability. Guidelines for adapting the proposed protocol to address variability in RP configuration due to experimental factors such as custom algorithms, stimulation techniques, and/or individualization are also considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33514127      PMCID: PMC7803384          DOI: 10.1121/10.0002989

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  57 in total

1.  Comparison of speech recognition with different speech coding strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and ACE) and their relationship to telemetric measures of compound action potentials in the nucleus CI 24M cochlear implant system.

Authors:  J Kiefer; S Hohl; E Stürzebecher; T Pfennigdorff; W Gstöettner
Journal:  Audiology       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb

2.  Reduction in excitability of the auditory nerve following electrical stimulation at high stimulus rates. IV. Effects of stimulus intensity.

Authors:  C Q Huang; R K Shepherd
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 3.  Speech processing in vocoder-centric cochlear implants.

Authors:  Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2006

4.  Cochlear implantation and quality of life in postlingually deaf adults: long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Godelieve W J A Damen; Andy J Beynon; Paul F M Krabbe; Jef J S Mulder; Emmanuel A M Mylanus
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.497

Review 5.  Cochlear mechanisms of frequency and intensity coding. II. Dynamic range and the code for loudness.

Authors:  M Chatterjee; J J Zwislocki
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Channel interaction limits melodic pitch perception in simulated cochlear implants.

Authors:  Joseph D Crew; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Advantages and disadvantages reported by some of the better cochlear-implant patients.

Authors:  R S Tyler; D Kelsay
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1990-07

8.  Relationship between stimulus amplitude, stimulus frequency and neural damage during electrical stimulation of sciatic nerve of cat.

Authors:  D B McCreery; W F Agnew; T G Yuen; L A Bullara
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 2.602

9.  Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. II. Channel interaction.

Authors:  R V Shannon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1983-10       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Unilateral Cochlear Implants for Severe, Profound, or Moderate Sloping to Profound Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review and Consensus Statements.

Authors:  Craig A Buchman; René H Gifford; David S Haynes; Thomas Lenarz; Gerard O'Donoghue; Oliver Adunka; Allison Biever; Robert J Briggs; Matthew L Carlson; Pu Dai; Colin L Driscoll; Howard W Francis; Bruce J Gantz; Richard K Gurgel; Marlan R Hansen; Meredith Holcomb; Eva Karltorp; Milind Kirtane; Jannine Larky; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; J Thomas Roland; Shakeel R Saeed; Henryk Skarzynski; Piotr H Skarzynski; Mark Syms; Holly Teagle; Paul H Van de Heyning; Christophe Vincent; Hao Wu; Tatsuya Yamasoba; Terry Zwolan
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 6.223

View more
  1 in total

1.  CCi-MOBILE: A Portable Real Time Speech Processing Platform for Cochlear Implant and Hearing Research.

Authors:  Ria Ghosh; Hussnain Ali; John H L Hansen
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 4.538

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.