Effect of acoustic dynamic range on phoneme recognition in quiet and noise by cochlear implant users

1999 ◽  
Vol 106 (6) ◽  
pp. L65-L70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qian-Jie Fu ◽  
Robert V. Shannon
2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarek A. Ghannoum ◽  
Mona H. Selim ◽  
Amira M. El-Shennawy ◽  
Zahraa M. Elbohy

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Sun ◽  
Margarate W. Skinner ◽  
S. Y. Liu ◽  
T. S. Huang

This study’s purpose was to determine whether or not modifications in speech processor electrical stimulation levels were associated with changes in five Nucleus 22 cochlear implant recipients’ thresholds or maximum acceptable loudness levels (MALs). These modifications in minimum and maximum stimulation levels were made to optimize hearing in everyday life. One threshold and one MAL were obtained on each active electrode during six, weekly test sessions, three before and three after program modification. Only one participant had a significant change in threshold after program modification; this participant and four others had significant changes in MAL. Participants’ threshold variability was the same, but MAL variability was higher than that observed in other studies. Because these participants had no experience making MAL judgments prior to this study, this result suggests that implant recipients should be given sufficient practice in making MAL judgments to provide a stable clinical estimate of the upper boundary of the electrical dynamic range.


2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (01) ◽  
pp. 016-027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eun Kyung Jeon ◽  
Carolyn J. Brown ◽  
Christine P. Etler ◽  
Sara O'Brien ◽  
Li-Kuei Chiou ◽  
...  

Background: In the mid-1990s, Cochlear Corporation introduced a cochlear implant (CI) to the market that was equipped with hardware that made it possible to record electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) from CI users of all ages. Over the course of the next decade, many studies were published that compared ECAP thresholds with levels used to program the speech processor of the Nucleus CI. In 2001 Advanced Bionics Corporation introduced the Clarion CII cochlear implant (the Clarion CII internal device is also known as the CII Bionic Ear). This cochlear implant was also equipped with a system that allowed measurement of the ECAP. While a great deal is known about how ECAP thresholds compare with the levels used to program the speech processor of the Nucleus CI, relatively few studies have reported comparisons between ECAP thresholds and the levels used to program the speech processor of the Advanced Bionics CI. Purpose: To explore the relationship between ECAP thresholds and behavioral measures of perceptual dynamic range for the range of stimuli commonly used to program the speech processor of the Advanced Bionics CI. Research Design: This prospective and experimental study uses correlational and descriptive statistics to define the relationship between ECAP thresholds and perceptual dynamic range measures. Study Sample: Twelve postlingually deafened adults participated in this study. All were experienced users of the Advanced Bionics CI system. Data Collection and Analysis: ECAP thresholds were recorded using the commercially available SoundWave software. Perceptual measures of threshold (T-level), most comfortable level (M-level), and maximum comfortable level (C-level) were obtained using both “tone bursts” and “speech bursts.” The relationship between these perceptual and electrophysiological variables was defined using paired t-tests as well as correlation and linear regression. Results: ECAP thresholds were significantly correlated with the perceptual dynamic range measures studied; however, correlations were not strong. Analysis of the individual data revealed considerable discrepancy between the contour of ECAP threshold versus electrode function and the behavioral loudness estimates used for programming. Conclusion: ECAP thresholds recorded from Advanced Bionics cochlear implant users always indicated levels where the programming stimulus was audible for the listener. However, the correlation between ECAP thresholds and M-levels (the primary metric used to program the speech processor of the Advanced Bionics CI), while statistically significant, was quite modest. If programming levels are to be determined on the basis of ECAP thresholds, care should be taken to ensure that stimulation is not uncomfortably loud, particularly on the basal electrodes in the array.


2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (08) ◽  
pp. 478-486
Author(s):  
Lisa G. Potts ◽  
Soo Jang ◽  
Cory L. Hillis

Abstract Background For cochlear implant (CI) recipients, speech recognition in noise is consistently poorer compared with recognition in quiet. Directional processing improves performance in noise and can be automatically activated based on acoustic scene analysis. The use of adaptive directionality with CI recipients is new and has not been investigated thoroughly, especially utilizing the recipients' preferred everyday signal processing, dynamic range, and/or noise reduction. Purpose This study utilized CI recipients' preferred everyday signal processing to evaluate four directional microphone options in a noisy environment to determine which option provides the best speech recognition in noise. A greater understanding of automatic directionality could ultimately improve CI recipients' speech-in-noise performance and better guide clinicians in programming. Study Sample Twenty-six unilateral and seven bilateral CI recipients with a mean age of 66 years and approximately 4 years of CI experience were included. Data Collection and Analysis Speech-in-noise performance was measured using eight loudspeakers in a 360-degree array with HINT sentences presented in restaurant noise. Four directional options were evaluated (automatic [SCAN], adaptive [Beam], fixed [Zoom], and Omni-directional) with participants' everyday use signal processing options active. A mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA) and pairwise comparisons were performed. Results Automatic directionality (SCAN) resulted in the best speech-in-noise performance, although not significantly better than Beam. Omni-directional performance was significantly poorer compared with the three other directional options. A varied number of participants performed their best with each of the four-directional options, with 16 performing best with automatic directionality. The majority of participants did not perform best with their everyday directional option. Conclusion The individual variability seen in this study suggests that CI recipients try with different directional options to find their ideal program. However, based on a CI recipient's motivation to try different programs, automatic directionality is an appropriate everyday processing option.


1988 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Jerger ◽  
Terrey A. Oliver ◽  
Rose A. Chmiel

1987 ◽  
Vol 96 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 76-79
Author(s):  
J. Génin ◽  
R. Charachon

In a multichannel cochlear prosthesis, electrical interactions between electrodes impose severe limitations on dynamic range and selectivity. We present a theoretical model to cope with these limitations. Building a successful cochlear implant requires full custom-integrated circuits. We present the design of such a device, implemented in complementary metal oxide semiconductor technology. The area of the chip is 9 mm2 and it can stimulate 15 cochlear electrodes with current impulses.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document