Comparison of continuous interleaved sampling and simultaneous analog stimulation speech processing strategies in newly implanted adults with a clarion 1.2 cochlear implant

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 455-465

  Zwolan, Terry A ^a   Kileny, Paul R ^a   Smith, Sharon ^b   Waltzman, Susan ^c   Chute, Pat ^d   Domico, Elizabeth ^e   Firszt, Jill ^f   Hodges, Annelle ^g   Mills, Dawna ^h   Whearty, Maggie ⁱ   Osberger, Mary Joe ^j   Fisher, Laurel ^h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d MERCY COLLEGE   (United States)

^e Memphis Oral School for the Deaf   (United States)

^f MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

^h HOUSE EAR INSTITUTE   (United States)

ⁱ MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY   (United States)

^j ADVANCED BIONICS CORPORATION   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Clarion 1.2 enhanced bipolar device; Cochlear implants; Continous Interleaved Sampling (CIS); Simultaneous Analog Stimulation (SAS); Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRODE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOUND; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DEAFNESS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 20844451191     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mao.0000169794.76072.16     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Gantz B, Tyler R, Knutson J, et al. Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: audiologic assessment and predictors of performance. Laryngoscope 1988;98:1100-6.
2. Cohen NL, Waltzman SB, Fisher SB. A prospective randomized study of cochlear implants. N Engl J Med 1993;328:233-7.
3. Skinner MW, Fourakis MS, Holden TA, et al. Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the Multipeak (MPEAK) and Spectral Peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies: I - Vowels. Ear Hear 1996;17:182-97.
4. Osberger MJ, Fisher L. SAS-CIS preference study in postlingually deafened adults implanted with the Clarion cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1999;108(suppl):74-9.
5. Osberger MJ, Fisher L. New directions in speech processing: patient performance with simultaneous analog stimulation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002;109:70-3.
6. Osberger MJ, Fisher L, Kalberer A. Speech perception results in adults implanted with the Clarion Multi-Strategy Cochlear implant. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2000;57:421-4.
7. Skinner MW, Clark GM, Whitford LA, et al. Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant system. Am J Otol 1994;15:15-27.
8. Parkinson AJ, Tyler RS, Woodworth GG, et al. A within-subject comparison of adult patient using the Nucleus F0F1F2 and F0F1F2B3B4B5 speech processing strategies. J Speech Hear Res 1996;39:261-77.
9. Zwolan TA, Kileny PR, Ashbaugh C, Telian SA. Patient Performance with the Cochlear Corporation "20+2" Implant: bipolar versus monopolar activation. Am J Otol 1996;17:717-23.
10. Kileny PR, Zwolan TA, Telian SA, Boerst A. Performance with the 20 + 2 lateral wall cochlear implant. Am J Otol 1999;19:313-7.
11. Kileny PR, Zimmerman-Phillips S, Zwolan TA, Kemink JL. The effects of channel number and place of stimulation on performance with the Cochlear Corporation multichannel implant. Am J Otol 1992;13:117-23.
12. Dorman MF, Dankowski K, McCandless G, Smith LM. Consonant recognition as a function of the number of channels of stimulation by patients who use the Symbion cochlear implant. Ear Hear 1989;10:288-91.
13. Fishman KE, Shannon RV, Slattery WH. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1997;40:1201-15.
14. Battmer R, Zilberman Y, Haake P, Lenarz T. SAS-CIS Pilot comparison study in Europe. Ann Otol Rind Laryngol 1999;108:69-73.
15. Stollwerck LE, Goodrum-Clarke K, Lynch C, et al. Speech processing strategy preferences among 55 European Clarion cochlear implant users. Scand Audiol 2001;30:36-8.
16. Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, et al. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 1991;352:236-8.
17. Advanced Bionics SCLIN 2000 Audiologist's manual.
18. Peterson GE, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962;27:62-70.
19. Nilsson MJ, McCaw VM, Soli S. Minimum Speech Test Battery for Adult Cochlear Implant Users. Los Angeles, CA: House Ear Institute, 1996.
20. Cochlear Corporation and The University of Iowa Revised Cochlear Implant Test Battery. Englewood, CO: Cochlear Corporation, 1995.
21. Tyler RS, Parkinson AJ, Woodworth GG, et al. Performance over Time of adults using the Ineraid or Nucleus cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 1997;102:508-22.
22. Dorman MF, Dankowski K, McCandless G, et al. Longitudinal changes in word recognition by patients who use the Ineraid cochlear implant. Ear Hear 1990;11:455-9.
23. Spivak LG, Waltzman SB. Performance of cochlear implant patients as a function of time. J Speech Hear Res 1990;33:511-9.
24. Kessler DK. The Clarion multi-strategy cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1999;177(Suppl):8-16.
25. Frijns JH, Briaire JJ, de Laat JA, Grote JJ. Initial evaluation of the Clarion CII cochlear implant: speech perception and neural response imaging. Ear Hear 2002;23:184-97.
26. Koch DB, Osberger MJ, Segel P, Kessler D. HiResolution and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution Bionic ear: using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability. Audiol Neurootol 2004;9:214-23.