Performance of patients using different cochlear implant systems: Effects of input dynamic range

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 260-275

  Spahr, Anthony J ^a   Dorman, Michael F ^a   Loiselle, Louise H ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NOISE; PERFORMANCE; SCORING SYSTEM; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; DEAFNESS; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; PHONETICS; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SPEECH PERCEPTION; VOCABULARY; VOICE;

EID: 34247641257     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3180312607     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Blamey, P., Dowell, R., Brown, A., Clark, G., Seligman, P. (1987). Vowel and consonant recognition of cochlear implant patients using formant-estimating speech processors. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82, 48-57.
2. Boike, K., Souza, P. (2000). Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 43, 456-468.
3. Boothroyd, A., Hanin, L., Hnath, T. (1985). A sentence test of speech perception: Reliability, set equivalence, and short term learning. Speech and Hearing Science Report, RC110 (City University New York).
4. Cochlear Limited. (2001, January). Input signal processing for optimal performance (Cochlear N94452F ISS 1 JAN2001). Sydney, Australia.
5. Cochlear Limited. (2002, June). Nucleus ESPrit 3G Whisper Setting (Cochlear N95175F ISS 1 JUN02). Sydney, Australia.
6. Cosendai, G., Pelizzone, M. (2001). Effects of the acoustical dynamic range on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Audiology, 40, 272-281.
7. Dorman, M. F., Dankowski, K., McCandless, G., Smith, L. (1989). Consonant recognition as a function of the number of channels of stimulation by patients who use the Symbion cochlear implant. Ear and Hearing, 10, 288-291.
8. Dorman, M. F., Dankowski, K., McCandless, G., Smith, L. (1990). Acoustic cues for consonant identification by patients who use the Ineraid cochlear implant. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 2074-2079.
9. Dorman, M. F., Loizou, P., Rainey, D. (1997). Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2403-2411.
10. Dorman, M. F., Loizou, P., Spahr, A., Maloff, E. (2002). A comparison of the speech understanding provided by acoustic models of fixed-channel and channel-picking signal processors for cochlear implants, Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 44, 1-6.
11. Fayad, J., Linthicum, F. (2006). Multichannel cochlear implants: Relation of histopathology to performance. Laryngoscope, 116, 1310-1320.
12. Firszt, J., Holden, L., Skinner, M., Tobey, E., Peterson, A., Gaggl, W., Runge-Samuelson, C., Wackym, P. (2004). Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems. Ear and Hearing, 25, 375-387.
13. Fu, Q., Shannon, R. (1999). Effect of acoustic dynamic range on phoneme recognition in quiet and noise by cochlear implant users. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, L65-L70.
14. Gantz, B. J., Woodworth, G., Abbas, P., Knutson, J. F., Tyler, R. S. (1993). Multivariate predictors of audiological success with cochlear implants. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, 102, 909-916.
15. Hartmann, W., Johnson, D. (1991). Stream segregation and peripheral channeling. Music Perception, 9, 155-184.
16. Helms, J., Müller, J., Schön, F., Moser, L. M., Arnold, W., Janssen, T., Ramsden, R., von Ilberg, C., Kiefer, J., Pfennigdorf, T., Gstöttner, W., Baumgartner, W., Ehrenberger, K., Skarzynski, H., Ribari, O., Thumfart, W., Stephan, K., Mann, W., Heinemann, M., Zorowka, P., Lippert, K., Zenner, H., Bohndorf, M., Hüttenbrink, K., Hochmair-Desoyer, I. (1989). Evaluation of performance with the COMBI40 Cochlear Implant in Adults: A multicentric clinical study. Journal for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and its Related Specialties, 59, 23-35.
17. James, C., Blamey, P., Martin, L., Swanson, B., Just, Y., Macfarlane, D. (2002). Adaptive dynamic range optimization for cochlear implants: a preliminary study. Ear and Hearing, 23(Suppl), 49s-58s.
18. James, C. J., Skinner, M. W., Martin, L. F., Holden, L. K., Galvin, K. L., Holden, T. A., Whitford, L. (2003). An investigation of input level range for the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: Speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings. Ear and Hearing, 24, 157-174.
19. Kileny, P. R., Zimmerman-Phillips, S., Kemink, J. L., Schmaltz, S. P. (1991). Effects of preoperative electrical stimulability and historical factors on performance with multichannel cochlear implant. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 100, 563-568.
20. Kirk, K. I., Houston, D. M., Pisoni, D. B., Sprunger, A. B., Kim-Lee, Y. (2002). Talker discrimination and spoken word recognition by adults with cochlear implants. Association for Research in Otolaryngology Twenty-Fifth Midwinter Meeting, St. Petersburg, FL.
21. Klatt, D. (1980). Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 971-995.
22. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. 1990 Decibel table. (National Institutes of Health) Bethesda, MD.
23. Peterson, G., Lehiste, I. (1962). Revised CNC lists for auditory tests, Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 17, 62-70.
24. Rosen, S., Walliker, J., Brimacombe, J., Edgerton, B. (1989). Prosodic and segmental aspects of speech perception with the House/3M single-channel implant. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 93-111.
25. Rubenstein, J. T., Parkinson, W. S., Tyler, R. S., Gantz, B. J. (1999). Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: Effects of implantation criteria. The American Journal of Otology, 20, 445-452.
26. Souza, P. E., Jenstad, L. M., Zboike, K. T. (2006). Measuring the acoustic effects of compression amplification on speech in noise (L). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 41-44.
27. Spahr, A., Dorman, M. (2004). Performance of implant patients fit with the CII and Nucleus 3G devices. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, 130, 624-628.
28. Spahr, A., Dorman, M. (2005). Effects of minimum stimulation settings for the Med El Tempo+ speech processor on speech understanding. Ear & Hearing, 26 (Supplement), 2s-6s.
29. Stöbich, B., Zierhofer, C., Hochmair, E. (1999). Influence of automatic gain control parameter settings on speech understanding of cochlear implant users employing the continuous interleaved sampling strategy. Ear and Hearing, 20, 104-116.
30. Tyler, R., Preece, J., Lansing, C., Otto, S., Gantz, B. (1986). Previous experience as a confounding factor in comparing cochlear-implant processing schemes. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 29, 282-287.
31. van Dijk, J. E., van Olphen, A. F., Langereis, M. C., mens, L. H., Brokx, J. P., Smoorenburg, G. F. (1999). Predictors of cochlear implant performance. Audiology,38, 109-116.
32. Waltzman, S. B., Fisher, S. G., Niparko, J. K., Cohen, N. L. (1995). Predictors of postoperative performance with cochlear implants. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology Supplement, 165, 15-18.
33. Wilson, B. (2006). Speech Processing Strategies. In Cooper, H., Craddock, L. (Eds.), Cochlear Implants: A Practical Guide, 2nd Edition. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.
34. Zeise, M., Stutzel, A., von Specht, H., Begall, K., Freigang, B., Sroka, S., Nopp, P. (2000). Speech understanding with the, C. I. S., and the n-of-m strategy in the MED-EL COMBI 40+ system. Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 62, 321-329.
35. Zeng, F. GrantG., Niparko, J., Galvin, J., Shannon, R. OpieJ. Segel, P. (2002). Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 377-386.