Literature DB >> 8797215

Speech understanding in quiet and in noise with the CIS speech coding strategy (MED-EL Combi-40) compared to the multipeak and spectral peak strategies (nucleus).

J Kiefer1, J Müller, T Pfennigdorff, F Schön, J Helms, C von Ilberg, W Baumgartner, W Gstöttner, K Ehrenberger, W Arnold, K Stephan, W Thumfart, S Baur.   

Abstract

This study compares sentence understanding in quiet and in noise with 3 different speech coding strategies for cochlear implants. The results show that the spectral-peak (SPEAK) and continuous-interleaved-sampling (CIS) coding strategies, based on spectral signal analysis, allow for better speech understanding in quiet as well as in noise, than the multipeak (MPEAK) coding strategy, which relys on speech feature extraction. In the intrasubject comparison of the MPEAK and SPEAK strategies, the SPEAK coding strategy provided a considerable improvement in quiet and in noise for the majority of patients using the Nucleus 22 Mini-implant. In the intersubject comparisons, the mean results in noise with the CIS strategy were superior to both the MPEAK and the SPEAK strategies. The difference was greatest for the most difficult tests in noise. Understanding in noise was least reduced for the CIS strategy. Understanding in quiet was not significantly different between the CIS and the SPEAK strategies; both strategies were significantly better than the MPEAK strategy in quiet. These results are still preliminary, due to the relatively small number of patients and the great inherent intersubject variability of results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8797215     DOI: 10.1159/000276812

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec        ISSN: 0301-1569            Impact factor:   1.538


  7 in total

1.  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

2.  Maximizing cochlear implant patients' performance with advanced speech training procedures.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; John J Galvin
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-12-08       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Micro-CT scan, electron microscopy and optical microscopy study of insertional traumas of cochlear implants.

Authors:  Alexia Le Breton; Franck Jegoux; Paul Pilet; Benoit Godey
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 1.246

4.  Neurotrophic factor intervention restores auditory function in deafened animals.

Authors:  Takayuki Shinohara; Göran Bredberg; Mats Ulfendahl; Ilmari Pyykkö; N Petri Olivius; Risto Kaksonen; Bo Lindström; Richard Altschuler; Josef M Miller
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-01-29       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  The High Rate CIS Auditory Brainstem Implant for Restoration of Hearing in NF-2 Patients.

Authors:  Robert Behr; Joachim Müller; Wafaa Shehata-Dieler; Hans-Peter Schlake; Jan Helms; Klaus Roosen; Norfrid Klug; Bernd Hölper; Artur Lorens
Journal:  Skull Base       Date:  2007-03

6.  Comparison of two cochlear implant coding strategies on speech perception.

Authors:  Margaret T Dillon; Emily Buss; English R King; Ellen J Deres; Sarah N Obarowski; Meredith L Anderson; Marcia C Adunka
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2016-10-18

7.  Evaluation of speech perception in noise in cochlear implanted adults.

Authors:  Leandra Tabanez do Nascimento; Maria Cecília Bevilacqua
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2005-12-15
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.