Preliminary evaluation of a physiologically inspired signal processing strategy for cochlear implants

2014 ◽  
Vol 135 (4) ◽  
pp. 2410-2410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayaganesh Swaminathan ◽  
Raymond L. Goldsworthy ◽  
Patrick M. Zurek ◽  
Agnès C. Léger ◽  
Louis D. Braida
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Preliminary Evaluation ◽  
Processing Strategy

scholarly journals A Daily Alternating Method for Comparing Different Signal-Processing Strategies in Hearing Aids and in Cochlear Implants

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (05) ◽  
pp. 443-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Shelley A. Witt ◽  
Camille C. Dunn ◽  
Ann E. Perreau
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Daily Basis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Clear Advantage ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Listening Experience ◽  
Post Trial

Background: Although we always want to select the best signal-processing strategy for our hearing-aid and cochlear-implant patients, no efficient and valid procedure is available. Comparisons in the office are without listening experience, and short-term take-home trials are likely influenced by the order of strategies tried. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a new procedure for comparing signal-processing strategies whereby patients listen with one strategy one day and another strategy the next day. They continue this daily comparison for several weeks. We determined (1) if differences existed between strategies without prior listening experience and (2) if performance differences (or lack there of) obtained at the first listening experience are consistent with performance after two to three months of alternating between strategies on a daily basis (equal listening experience). Research Design: Eight subjects were tested pretrial with a vowel, sentence, and spondee recognition test, a localization task, and a quality rating test. They were required to listen to one of two different signal processing strategies alternating between strategies on a daily basis. After one to three months of listening, subjects returned for follow-up testing. Additionally, subjects were asked to make daily ratings and comments in a diary. Results: Pre-trial (no previous listening experience), a clear trend favoring one strategy was observed in four subjects. Four other subjects showed no clear advantage. Post-trial (after alternating daily between strategies), of the four subjects who showed a clear advantage for one signal processing strategy, only one subject showed that same advantage. One subject ended up with an advantage for the other strategy. Post-trial, of the four subjects who showed no advantage for a particular signal processing strategy, three did show an advantage for one strategy over the other. Conclusion: Patients are willing to alternate between signal processing strategies on a daily basis for up to three months in an attempt to determine their optimal strategy. Although some patients showed superior performance with initial fittings (and some did not), the results of pre-trial comparison did not always persist after having equal listening experience. We recommend this daily alternating listening technique when there is interest in determining optimal performance among different signal processing strategies when fitting hearing aids or cochlear implants.

scholarly journals Listener Performance with a Novel Hearing Aid Frequency Lowering Technique

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (09) ◽  
pp. 810-822 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Kirby ◽  
Judy G. Kopun ◽  
Meredith Spratford ◽  
Clairissa M. Mollak ◽  
Marc A. Brennan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
At Home

AbstractSloping hearing loss imposes limits on audibility for high-frequency sounds in many hearing aid users. Signal processing algorithms that shift high-frequency sounds to lower frequencies have been introduced in hearing aids to address this challenge by improving audibility of high-frequency sounds.This study examined speech perception performance, listening effort, and subjective sound quality ratings with conventional hearing aid processing and a new frequency-lowering signal processing strategy called frequency composition (FC) in adults and children.Participants wore the study hearing aids in two signal processing conditions (conventional processing versus FC) at an initial laboratory visit and subsequently at home during two approximately six-week long trials, with the order of conditions counterbalanced across individuals in a double-blind paradigm.Children (N = 12, 7 females, mean age in years = 12.0, SD = 3.0) and adults (N = 12, 6 females, mean age in years = 56.2, SD = 17.6) with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who were full-time hearing aid users.Individual performance with each type of processing was assessed using speech perception tasks, a measure of listening effort, and subjective sound quality surveys at an initial visit. At the conclusion of each subsequent at-home trial, participants were retested in the laboratory. Linear mixed effects analyses were completed for each outcome measure with signal processing condition, age group, visit (prehome versus posthome trial), and measures of aided audibility as predictors.Overall, there were few significant differences in speech perception, listening effort, or subjective sound quality between FC and conventional processing, effects of listener age, or longitudinal changes in performance. Listeners preferred FC to conventional processing on one of six subjective sound quality metrics. Better speech perception performance was consistently related to higher aided audibility.These results indicate that when high-frequency speech sounds are made audible with conventional processing, speech recognition ability and listening effort are similar between conventional processing and FC. Despite the lack of benefit to speech perception, some listeners still preferred FC, suggesting that qualitative measures should be considered when evaluating candidacy for this signal processing strategy.

Simulated phase‐locking stimulation: An improved signal processing strategy for cochlear implant

2005 ◽  
Vol 117 (4) ◽  
pp. 2397-2397
Author(s):  
Xihong Wu ◽  
Hongwei Qu ◽  
Jing Chen ◽  
Tianshu Qu ◽  
Liang Li
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Phase Locking ◽  
Processing Strategy

Comparison of different implementations of the ACE cochlear implant signal processing strategy with an objective metric

2018 ◽  
Vol 143 (3) ◽  
pp. 1943-1943
Author(s):  
Bernardo Murta ◽  
Rafael Chiea ◽  
Gustavo Mourão ◽  
Stephan Paul ◽  
Julio A. Cordioli
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Processing Strategy
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document