scholarly journals Optimization of Programming Parameters in Children with the Advanced Bionics Cochlear Implant

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (05) ◽  
pp. 302-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacquelyn Baudhuin ◽  
Jamie Cadieux ◽  
Jill B. Firszt ◽  
Ruth M. Reeder ◽  
Jerrica L. Maxson
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Mixed Model ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Detection Thresholds ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Pediatric Recipients

Background: Cochlear implants provide access to soft intensity sounds and therefore improved audibility for children with severe-to-profound hearing loss. Speech processor programming parameters, such as threshold (or T-level), input dynamic range (IDR), and microphone sensitivity, contribute to the recipient's program and influence audibility. When soundfield thresholds obtained through the speech processor are elevated, programming parameters can be modified to improve soft sound detection. Adult recipients show improved detection for low-level sounds when T-levels are set at raised levels and show better speech understanding in quiet when wider IDRs are used. Little is known about the effects of parameter settings on detection and speech recognition in children using today's cochlear implant technology. Purpose: The overall study aim was to assess optimal T-level, IDR, and sensitivity settings in pediatric recipients of the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant. Research Design: Two experiments were conducted. Experiment 1 examined the effects of two T-level settings on soundfield thresholds and detection of the Ling 6 sounds. One program set T-levels at 10% of most comfortable levels (M-levels) and another at 10 current units (CUs) below the level judged as “soft.” Experiment 2 examined the effects of IDR and sensitivity settings on speech recognition in quiet and noise. Study Sample: Participants were 11 children 7–17 yr of age (mean 11.3) implanted with the Advanced Bionics High Resolution 90K or CII cochlear implant system who had speech recognition scores of 20% or greater on a monosyllabic word test. Data Collection and Analysis: Two T-level programs were compared for detection of the Ling sounds and frequency modulated (FM) tones. Differing IDR/sensitivity programs (50/0, 50/10, 70/0, 70/10) were compared using Ling and FM tone detection thresholds, CNC (consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant) words at 50 dB SPL, and Hearing in Noise Test for Children (HINT-C) sentences at 65 dB SPL in the presence of four-talker babble (+8 signal-to-noise ratio). Outcomes were analyzed using a paired t-test and a mixed-model repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: T-levels set 10 CUs below “soft” resulted in significantly lower detection thresholds for all six Ling sounds and FM tones at 250, 1000, 3000, 4000, and 6000 Hz. When comparing programs differing by IDR and sensitivity, a 50 dB IDR with a 0 sensitivity setting showed significantly poorer thresholds for low frequency FM tones and voiced Ling sounds. Analysis of group mean scores for CNC words in quiet or HINT-C sentences in noise indicated no significant differences across IDR/sensitivity settings. Individual data, however, showed significant differences between IDR/sensitivity programs in noise; the optimal program differed across participants. Conclusions: In pediatric recipients of the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant device, manually setting T-levels with ascending loudness judgments should be considered when possible or when low-level sounds are inaudible. Study findings confirm the need to determine program settings on an individual basis as well as the importance of speech recognition verification measures in both quiet and noise. Clinical guidelines are suggested for selection of programming parameters in both young and older children.

Evaluation of Automatic Directional Processing with Cochlear Implant Recipients

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (08) ◽  
pp. 478-486
Author(s):  
Lisa G. Potts ◽  
Soo Jang ◽  
Cory L. Hillis
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Mixed Model ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Individual Variability ◽  
Noise Performance ◽  
Mixed Model Analysis ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

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.

scholarly journals Recognition and Localization of Speech by Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients Wearing a Digital Hearing Aid in the Nonimplanted Ear (Bimodal Hearing)

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (06) ◽  
pp. 353-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa G. Potts ◽  
Margaret W. Skinner ◽  
Ruth A. Litovsky ◽  
Michael J. Strube ◽  
Francis Kuk
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bilateral Stimulation ◽  
Bimodal Condition ◽  
Digital Hearing Aid ◽  
Loudness Growth ◽  
Bimodal Hearing

Background: The use of bilateral amplification is now common clinical practice for hearing aid users but not for cochlear implant recipients. In the past, most cochlear implant recipients were implanted in one ear and wore only a monaural cochlear implant processor. There has been recent interest in benefits arising from bilateral stimulation that may be present for cochlear implant recipients. One option for bilateral stimulation is the use of a cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the opposite nonimplanted ear (bimodal hearing). Purpose: This study evaluated the effect of wearing a cochlear implant in one ear and a digital hearing aid in the opposite ear on speech recognition and localization. Research Design: A repeated-measures correlational study was completed. Study Sample: Nineteen adult Cochlear Nucleus 24 implant recipients participated in the study. Intervention: The participants were fit with a Widex Senso Vita 38 hearing aid to achieve maximum audibility and comfort within their dynamic range. Data Collection and Analysis: Soundfield thresholds, loudness growth, speech recognition, localization, and subjective questionnaires were obtained six–eight weeks after the hearing aid fitting. Testing was completed in three conditions: hearing aid only, cochlear implant only, and cochlear implant and hearing aid (bimodal). All tests were repeated four weeks after the first test session. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to analyze the data. Significant effects were further examined using pairwise comparison of means or in the case of continuous moderators, regression analyses. The speech-recognition and localization tasks were unique, in that a speech stimulus presented from a variety of roaming azimuths (140 degree loudspeaker array) was used. Results: Performance in the bimodal condition was significantly better for speech recognition and localization compared to the cochlear implant–only and hearing aid–only conditions. Performance was also different between these conditions when the location (i.e., side of the loudspeaker array that presented the word) was analyzed. In the bimodal condition, the speech-recognition and localization tasks were equal regardless of which side of the loudspeaker array presented the word, while performance was significantly poorer for the monaural conditions (hearing aid only and cochlear implant only) when the words were presented on the side with no stimulation. Binaural loudness summation of 1–3 dB was seen in soundfield thresholds and loudness growth in the bimodal condition. Measures of the audibility of sound with the hearing aid, including unaided thresholds, soundfield thresholds, and the Speech Intelligibility Index, were significant moderators of speech recognition and localization. Based on the questionnaire responses, participants showed a strong preference for bimodal stimulation. Conclusions: These findings suggest that a well-fit digital hearing aid worn in conjunction with a cochlear implant is beneficial to speech recognition and localization. The dynamic test procedures used in this study illustrate the importance of bilateral hearing for locating, identifying, and switching attention between multiple speakers. It is recommended that unilateral cochlear implant recipients, with measurable unaided hearing thresholds, be fit with a hearing aid.

Effect of Speech Processor Program Modifications on Cochlear Implant Recipients’ Threshold and Maximum Acceptable Loudness Levels

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Sun ◽  
Margarate W. Skinner ◽  
S. Y. Liu ◽  
T. S. Huang
Keyword(s):  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Everyday Life ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Active Electrode ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Significant Change ◽  
Upper Boundary

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.

scholarly journals Comparison of Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential Thresholds and Loudness Estimates for the Stimuli Used to Program the Advanced Bionics Cochlear Implant

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (01) ◽  
pp. 016-027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eun Kyung Jeon ◽  
Carolyn J. Brown ◽  
Christine P. Etler ◽  
Sara O'Brien ◽  
Li-Kuei Chiou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Compound Action Potential ◽  
Behavioral Measures ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Compound Action Potentials ◽  
Evoked Compound Action Potential ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Compound Action

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.

Improving Hearing Performance for Cochlear Implant Recipients with Use of a Digital, Wireless, Remote-Microphone, Audio-Streaming Accessory

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (06) ◽  
pp. 532-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jace Wolfe ◽  
Mila Morais ◽  
Erin Schafer
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Audio Signals ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Accessory Device ◽  
Sound Processor

Background: Cochlear implant (CI) recipients experience difficulty understanding speech in noise. Remote-microphone technology that improves the signal-to-noise ratio is recognized as an effective means to improve speech recognition in noise; however, there are no published studies evaluating the potential benefits of a wireless, remote-microphone, digital, audio-streaming accessory device (heretofore referred to as a remote-microphone accessory) designed to deliver audio signals directly to a CI sound processor. Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare speech recognition in quiet and in noise of recipients while using their CI alone and with a remote-microphone accessory. Research Design: A two-way repeated measures design was used to evaluate performance differences obtained in quiet and in increasing levels of competing noise with the CI sound processor alone and with the sound processor paired to the remote microphone accessory. Study Sample: Sixteen users of Cochlear Nucleus 24 Freedom, CI512, and CI422 implants were included in the study. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants were evaluated in 14 conditions including use of the sound processor alone and with the remote-microphone accessory in quiet and at the following signal levels: 65 dBA speech (at the location of the participant; 85 dBA at the location of the remote microphone) in quiet and competing noise at 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 dBA noise levels. Speech recognition was evaluated in each of these conditions with one full list of AzBio sentences. Results: Speech recognition in quiet and in all competing noise levels, except the 75 dBA condition, was significantly better with use of the remote-microphone accessory compared with participants’ performance with the CI sound processor alone. As expected, in all technology conditions, performance was significantly poorer as the competing noise level increased. Conclusions: Use of a remote-microphone accessory designed for a CI sound processor provides superior speech recognition in quiet and in noise when compared with performance obtained with the CI sound processor alone.

Association of Speech Processor Technology and Speech Recognition Outcomes in Adult Cochlear Implant Users

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 595-601
Author(s):  
Peter R. Dixon ◽  
David Shipp ◽  
Kari Smilsky ◽  
Vincent Y. Lin ◽  
Trung Le ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Processor

scholarly journals Speech Perception for Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients in a Realistic Background Noise: Effectiveness of Preprocessing Strategies and External Options for Improving Speech Recognition in Noise

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (07) ◽  
pp. 441-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
René H. Gifford ◽  
Lawrence J. Revit
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Single Subject ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Improved Performance ◽  
Listening In Noise

Background: Although cochlear implant patients are achieving increasingly higher levels of performance, speech perception in noise continues to be problematic. The newest generations of implant speech processors are equipped with preprocessing and/or external accessories that are purported to improve listening in noise. Most speech perception measures in the clinical setting, however, do not provide a close approximation to real-world listening environments. Purpose: To assess speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in the presence of a realistic restaurant simulation generated by an eight-loudspeaker (R-SPACE™) array in order to determine whether commercially available preprocessing strategies and/or external accessories yield improved sentence recognition in noise. Research Design: Single-subject, repeated-measures design with two groups of participants: Advanced Bionics and Cochlear Corporation recipients. Study Sample: Thirty-four subjects, ranging in age from 18 to 90 yr (mean 54.5 yr), participated in this prospective study. Fourteen subjects were Advanced Bionics recipients, and 20 subjects were Cochlear Corporation recipients. Intervention: Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in semidiffuse restaurant noise originating from an eight-loudspeaker array were assessed with the subjects' preferred listening programs as well as with the addition of either Beam™ preprocessing (Cochlear Corporation) or the T-Mic® accessory option (Advanced Bionics). Data Collection and Analysis: In Experiment 1, adaptive SRTs with the Hearing in Noise Test sentences were obtained for all 34 subjects. For Cochlear Corporation recipients, SRTs were obtained with their preferred everyday listening program as well as with the addition of Focus preprocessing. For Advanced Bionics recipients, SRTs were obtained with the integrated behind-the-ear (BTE) mic as well as with the T-Mic. Statistical analysis using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) evaluated the effects of the preprocessing strategy or external accessory in reducing the SRT in noise. In addition, a standard t-test was run to evaluate effectiveness across manufacturer for improving the SRT in noise. In Experiment 2, 16 of the 20 Cochlear Corporation subjects were reassessed obtaining an SRT in noise using the manufacturer-suggested “Everyday,” “Noise,” and “Focus” preprocessing strategies. A repeated-measures ANOVA was employed to assess the effects of preprocessing. Results: The primary findings were (i) both Noise and Focus preprocessing strategies (Cochlear Corporation) significantly improved the SRT in noise as compared to Everyday preprocessing, (ii) the T-Mic accessory option (Advanced Bionics) significantly improved the SRT as compared to the BTE mic, and (iii) Focus preprocessing and the T-Mic resulted in similar degrees of improvement that were not found to be significantly different from one another. Conclusion: Options available in current cochlear implant sound processors are able to significantly improve speech understanding in a realistic, semidiffuse noise with both Cochlear Corporation and Advanced Bionics systems. For Cochlear Corporation recipients, Focus preprocessing yields the best speech-recognition performance in a complex listening environment; however, it is recommended that Noise preprocessing be used as the new default for everyday listening environments to avoid the need for switching programs throughout the day. For Advanced Bionics recipients, the T-Mic offers significantly improved performance in noise and is recommended for everyday use in all listening environments.

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.

Efficacy of a Cochlear Implant Simultaneous Analog Stimulation Strategy Coupled with a Monopolar Electrode Configuration

2005 ◽  
Vol 114 (11) ◽  
pp. 886-893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Xu ◽  
Teresa A. Zwolan ◽  
Catherine S. Thompson ◽  
Bryan E. Pfingst
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Electrode Configuration ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Open Set ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test

Objectives: The present study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and clinical feasibility of using monopolar stimulation with the Clarion Simultaneous Analog Stimulation (SAS) strategy in patients with cochlear implants. Methods: Speech recognition by 10 Clarion cochlear implant users was evaluated by means of 4 different speech processing strategy/electrode configuration combinations; ie, SAS and Continuous Interleaved Sampling (CIS) strategies were each used with monopolar (MP) and bipolar (BP) electrode configurations. The test measures included consonants, vowels, consonant-nucleus-consonant words, and Hearing in Noise Test sentences with a +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Additionally, subjective judgments of sound quality were obtained for each strategy/configuration combination. Results: All subjects but 1 demonstrated open-set speech recognition with the SAS/MP combination. The group mean Hearing in Noise Test sentence score for the SAS/MP combination was 31.6% (range, 0% to 92%) correct, as compared to 25.0%, 46.7%, and 37.8% correct for the CIS/BP, CIS/MP, and SAS/BP combinations, respectively. Intersubject variability was high, and there were no significant differences in mean speech recognition scores or mean preference ratings among the 4 strategy/configuration combinations tested. Individually, the best speech recognition performance was with the subject's everyday strategy/configuration combination in 72% of the applicable cases. If the everyday strategy was excluded from the analysis, the subjects performed best with the SAS/MP combination in 37.5% of the remaining cases. Conclusions: The SAS processing strategy with an MP electrode configuration gave reasonable speech recognition in most subjects, even though subjects had minimal previous experience with this strategy/configuration combination. The SAS/MP combination might be particularly appropriate for patients for whom a full dynamic range of electrical hearing could not be achieved with a BP configuration.

Evaluation of Speech Recognition in Noise with Cochlear Implants and Dynamic FM

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (07) ◽  
pp. 409-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jace Wolfe ◽  
Erin C. Schafer ◽  
Benjamin Heldner ◽  
Hans Mülder ◽  
Emily Ward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: Use of personal frequency-modulated (FM) systems significantly improves speech recognition in noise for users of cochlear implants (CIs). Previous studies have shown that the most appropriate gain setting on the FM receiver may vary based on the listening situation and the manufacturer of the CI system. Unlike traditional FM systems with fixed-gain settings, Dynamic FM automatically varies the gain of the FM receiver with changes in the ambient noise level. There are no published reports describing the benefits of Dynamic FM use for CI recipients or how Dynamic FM performance varies as a function of CI manufacturer. Purpose: To evaluate speech recognition of Advanced Bionics Corporation or Cochlear Corporation CI recipients using Dynamic FM vs. a traditional FM system and to examine the effects of Autosensitivity on the FM performance of Cochlear Corporation recipients. Research Design: A two-group repeated-measures design. Participants were assigned to a group according to their type of CI. Study Sample: Twenty-five subjects, ranging in age from 8 to 82 years, met the inclusion criteria for one or more of the experiments. Thirteen subjects used Advanced Bionics Corporation, and 12 used Cochlear Corporation implants. Intervention: Speech recognition was assessed while subjects used traditional, fixed-gain FM systems and Dynamic FM systems. Data Collection and Analysis: In Experiments 1 and 2, speech recognition was evaluated with a traditional, fixed-gain FM system and a Dynamic FM system using the Hearing in Noise Test sentences in quiet and in classroom noise. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate effects of CI manufacturer (Advanced Bionics and Cochlear Corporation), type of FM system (traditional and dynamic), noise level, and use of Autosensitivity for users of Cochlear Corporation implants. Experiment 3 determined the effects of Autosensitivity on speech recognition of Cochlear Corporation implant recipients when listening through the speech processor microphone with the FM system muted. A repeated-measures ANOVA was used to examine the effects of signal-to-noise ratio and Autosensitivity. Results: In Experiment 1, use of Dynamic FM resulted in better speech recognition in noise for Advanced Bionics recipients relative to traditional FM at noise levels of 65, 70, and 75 dB SPL. Advanced Bionics recipients obtained better speech recognition in noise with FM use when compared to Cochlear Corporation recipients. When Autosensitivity was enabled in Experiment 2, the performance of Cochlear Corporation recipients was equivalent to that of Advanced Bionics recipients, and Dynamic FM was significantly better than traditional FM. Results of Experiment 3 indicate that use of Autosensitivity improves speech recognition in noise of signals directed to the speech processor relative to no Autosensitivity. Conclusions: Dynamic FM should be considered for use with persons with CIs to improve speech recognition in noise. At default CI settings, FM performance is better for Advanced Bionics recipients when compared to Cochlear Corporation recipients, but use of Autosensitivity by Cochlear Corporation users results in equivalent group performance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document