Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies

2000 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 1645-1658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gail S. Donaldson ◽  
David A. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Consonant Recognition ◽  
Place Pitch

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.

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.

Speech-Processing Strategies and Their Implementation

1987 ◽  
Vol 96 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 71-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Seligman
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Pulse Rate ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Temporal Coding ◽  
Electrode Position ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Speech Information

Since 1979, the Australian speech-processing strategy has been based on the presentation of an estimate of F2 coded by electrode position and F0 coded by pulse rate. Although providing limited information, this strategy has produced good results with significant hearing-alone performance. This paper describes a number of strategies that provide further speech information in an attempt to increase hearing-alone performance to a level where the cochlear implant is able to operate in its own right rather than as an adjunct to lipreading. The strategies are all based on the addition of F1 to the existing strategy. Both electrode and temporal coding of F1 is described, and the performance and percepts produced are discussed. Amplitudes of the two formants must be carefully controlled to avoid masking. The implications of the strategies on the design of hardware are described.

scholarly journals Place pitch discrimination and speech recognition in cochlear implants users

1996 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan J. Hanekom ◽  
Robert V. Shannon
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Pitch Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Ability ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Place Pitch ◽  
Pitch Distance ◽  
The Relationship

The considerable variability in speech perception performance among cochlear implant patients makes it difficult to compare the effectiveness of different speech processing strategies. One result is that optimal individualized processor parameter setting is not always achieved. This paper investigates the relationship between place pitch discrimination ability and speech perception to establish whether pitch ranking could be used as an aid in better patient-specific fitting of processors. Three subjects participated in this study. Place pitch discrimination ability was measured and this information was used to design new channel to electrode allocations for each subject. Several allocations were evaluated with speech tests with consonant, vowel and sentence material. It is shown that there is correlation between the perceptual pitch distance between electrodes and speech perception performance. The results indicate that pitch ranking ability might be used both as an indicator of  the speech perception potential of an implant user and in the choice of better electrode configurations.

A Within-Subject Comparison of Adult Patients Using the Nucleus F0F1F2 and F0F1F2B3B4B5 Speech Processing Strategies

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron J. Parkinson ◽  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
George G. Woodworth ◽  
Mary W. Lowder ◽  
Bruce J. Gantz
Keyword(s):  
Speech Processing ◽  
The Other ◽  
Superior Performance ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Average Performance ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Consonant Recognition ◽  
Subject Comparison

This study compares the Nucleus F0F1F2 and F0F1F2B3B4B5 (also known as “Multipeak” or “Mpeak”) processing schemes in 17 patients wearing the Mini Speech Processor. All patients had at least 18 months implant experience using the F0F1F2 processing strategy. For this study, they were switched to the F0F1F2B3B4B5 processing strategy for 3 months. They then returned to using the F0F1F2 strategy for 3 months, then used the F0F1F2B3B4B5 strategy again for 3 months, and lastly used the F0F1F2 strategy for 3 months. Performance was evaluated with both schemes after each interval, using speech recognition tests and subjective ratings. Overall, differences between the results for the two processing schemes were not large. Average performance was somewhat better for the F0F1F2B3B4B5 strategy for word and sentence identification, but not for any of the other speech measures. Superior performance was observed in 8 patients with the F0F1F2B3B4B5 strategy. However, 6 of the 8 individuals were significantly better on only one of the six speech measures in the test battery. The other 2 patients performed better on two of the speech measures. Superior performance was also observed in 3 patients with the F0F1F2 strategy for consonant recognition. For the remaining patients, there was little difference in their performance with the two strategies. Information transmission analyses indicated that the F0F1F2B3B4B5 strategy transmitted consonant duration and frication cues more efficiently than F0F1F2. Experience with one strategy appeared to benefit performance with the other strategy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document