scholarly journals A novel speech processing algorithm based on harmonicity cues in cochlear implant

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jian Wang ◽  
Yousheng Chen ◽  
Zongping Zhang ◽  
Yan Chen ◽  
Weifeng Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Processing Algorithm

scholarly journals Cortical Speech Processing in Postlingually Deaf Adult Cochlear Implant Users, as Revealed by Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 233121651878685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xin Zhou ◽  
Abd-Krim Seghouane ◽  
Adnan Shah ◽  
Hamish Innes-Brown ◽  
Will Cross ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infrared Spectroscopy ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Near Infrared Spectroscopy ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Near Infrared ◽  
Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy

A Novel Speech Processing Applications in Cochlear Implant Research

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 486-490
Author(s):  
Hajer Rahali ◽  
Zied Hajaiej ◽  
Noureddine Ellouze
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Processing

An Introduction to Cochlear Implant Technology, Activation, and Programming

2002 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 153-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan A. Moore ◽  
Holly F. B. Teagle
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Academic Development ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
School Age ◽  
Technology In The Classroom ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Cochlear Implant Surgery

Over the last decade, cochlear implantation has become an increasingly viable alternative for the treatment of profound sensorineural hearing loss in children. Although speech and hearing professionals play an important role in the communicative, social, and academic development of children with cochlear implants, many may be unfamiliar with recent advances in implant technology. This article provides an overview of the components of cochlear implant systems and the speech processing strategies that are currently being used by toddlers, preschoolers, and school-age children. A brief description of cochlear implant surgery and the procedures for programming these devices are also included. Finally, information regarding the use of assistive listening technology in the classroom is presented.

Effect of Different Signal-Processing Options on Speech-in-Noise Recognition for Cochlear Implant Recipients with the Cochlear CP810 Speech Processor

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (04) ◽  
pp. 367-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa G. Potts ◽  
Kelly A. Kolb
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Noise Cancellation ◽  
Space Environment ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Directional Filtering ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Db Difference

Background: Difficulty understanding speech in the presence of background noise is a common report among cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Several speech-processing options designed to improve speech recognition, especially in noise, are currently available in the Cochlear Nucleus CP810 speech processor. These include adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO), autosensitivity control (ASC), Beam, and Zoom. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate CI recipients’ speech-in-noise recognition to determine which currently available processing option or options resulted in best performance in a simulated restaurant environment. Research Design: Experimental study with one study group. The independent variable was speech-processing option, and the dependent variable was the reception threshold for sentences score. Study Sample: Thirty-two adult CI recipients. Intervention: Eight processing options were tested: Beam, Beam + ASC, Beam + ADRO, Beam + ASC + ADRO, Zoom, Zoom + ASC, Zoom + ADRO, and Zoom + ASC + ADRO. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants repeated Hearing in Noise Test sentences presented at a 0° azimuth, with R-Space restaurant noise presented from a 360° eight-loudspeaker array at 70 dB sound pressure level. A one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to analyze differences in Beam options, Zoom options, and Beam versus Zoom options. Results: Among the Beam options, Beam + ADRO was significantly poorer than Beam only, Beam + ASC, and Beam + ASC + ADRO. A 1.6-dB difference was observed between the best (Beam only) and poorest (Beam + ADRO) options. Among the Zoom options, Zoom only and Zoom + ADRO were significantly poorer than Zoom + ASC. A 2.2-dB difference was observed between the best (Zoom + ASC) and poorest (Zoom only) options. The comparison between Beam and Zoom options showed one significant difference, with Zoom only significantly poorer than Beam only. No significant difference was found between the other Beam and Zoom options (Beam + ASC vs Zoom + ASC, Beam + ADRO vs Zoom + ADRO, and Beam + ASC + ADRO vs Zoom + ASC + ADRO). The best processing option varied across subjects, with an almost equal number of participants performing best with a Beam option (n = 15) compared with a Zoom option (n = 17). There were no significant demographic or audiological moderating variables for any option. Conclusions: The results showed no significant differences between adaptive directionality (Beam) and fixed directionality (Zoom) when ASC was active in the R-Space environment. This finding suggests that noise-reduction processing is extremely valuable in loud semidiffuse environments in which the effectiveness of directional filtering might be diminished. However, there was no significant difference between the Beam-only and Beam + ASC options, which is most likely related to the additional noise cancellation performed by the Beam option (i.e., two-stage directional filtering and noise cancellation). In addition, the processing options with ADRO resulted in the poorest performances. This could be related to how the CI recipients were programmed or the loud noise level used in this study. The best processing option varied across subjects, but the majority performed best with directional filtering (Beam or Zoom) in combination with ASC. Therefore in a loud semidiffuse environment, the use of either Beam + ASC or Zoom + ASC is recommended.

scholarly journals An Attempt to Improve Bilateral Cochlear Implants by Increasing the Distance between Electrodes and Providing Complementary Information to the Two Ears

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (01) ◽  
pp. 052-065 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Shelley A. Witt ◽  
Camille C. Dunn ◽  
Ann Perreau ◽  
Aaron J. Parkinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Bilateral Cochlear Implants ◽  
Channel Interaction ◽  
Consonant Recognition ◽  
Bilateral Cochlear Implant ◽  
Input Spectrum

Objectives: The purpose of this investigation was to determine if adult bilateral cochlear implant recipients could benefit from using a speech processing strategy in which the input spectrum was interleaved among electrodes across the two implants. Design: Two separate experiments were conducted. In both experiments, subjects were tested using a control speech processing strategy and a strategy in which the full input spectrum was filtered so that only the output of half of the filters was audible to one implant, while the output of the alternative filters was audible to the other implant. The filters were interleaved in a way that created alternate frequency “holes” between the two cochlear implants. Results: In experiment one, four subjects were tested on consonant recognition. Results indicated that one of the four subjects performed better with the interleaved strategy, one subject received a binaural advantage with the interleaved strategy that they did not receive with the control strategy, and two subjects showed no decrement in performance when using the interleaved strategy. In the second experiment, 11 subjects were tested on word recognition, sentences in noise, and localization (it should be noted that not all subjects participated in all tests). Results showed that for speech perception testing one subject achieved significantly better scores with the interleaved strategy on all tests, and seven subjects showed a significant improvement with the interleaved strategy on at least one test. Only one subject showed a decrement in performance on all speech perception tests with the interleaved strategy. Out of nine subjects, one subject preferred the sound quality of the interleaved strategy. No one performed better on localization with the interleaved strategy. Conclusion: Data from this study indicate that some adult bilateral cochlear implant recipients can benefit from using a speech processing strategy in which the input spectrum is interleaved among electrodes across the two implants. It is possible that the subjects in this study who showed a significant improvement with the interleaved strategy did so because of less channel interaction; however, this hypothesis was not directly tested.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document