Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant users' phoneme, word and sentence recognition in quiet and in noise

Audiology and Neurotology

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 113-123

  Shannon, Robert V ^a   Cruz, Rachel J ^a   Galvin, John J ^a  

^a HOUSE EAR INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Speech processing; Speech recognition; Stimulation rate

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; ELECTRODE; ELECTROSTIMULATION; FEMALE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; NOISE; PHONETICS; PHYSIOLOGY; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; DEAFNESS; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; ELECTRODES, IMPLANTED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PHONETICS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 77954552320     PISSN: 14203030     EISSN: 14219700     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000315115     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Advanced Bionics CII Bionic Ear Programming System. Valencia, Advanced Bionics Corporation, 2001.
2. Brill SM, Gstöttner W, Helms J, von Ilberg C, Baumgartner W, Müller J, Kiefer J: Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+. Am J Otol 1997; 18(suppl):S104-S106.
3. Dorman MF, Loizou PC, Fitzke J: The identification of speech in noise by cochlear implant patients and normal-hearing listeners using 6-channel signal processors. Ear Hear 1998; 19: 481-484.
4. Dorman MF, Loizou PC, Fitzke J, Tu Z: Recognition of monosyllabic words by cochlear implant patients and by normal-hearing subjects listening to words processed through cochlear implant signal processing strategies. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2000; 185: 64-66.
5. Dorman MF, Loizou PC, Rainey D: Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine wave and noise band outputs. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 102: 2403-2411.
6. 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: 1201-1215.
7. Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X: Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 110: 1150-1163.
8. Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Cruz RJ: Effects of stimulation rate on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol 2005; 10: 169-184.
9. Fu QJ, Shannon RV: Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107: 589-597.
10. Fu QJ, Shannon RV, Wang X: Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104: 3586-3596.
11. Galvin JJ 3rd, Fu QJ: Effects of stimulation rate, mode, and level on modulation detection by cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2005; 6: 269-279.
12. Galvin JJ 3rd, Fu QJ: Influence of stimulation rate and loudness growth on modulation detection and intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 2009; 250: 46-54.
13. Hill FJ, McRae LP, McClellan RP: Speech recognition as a function of channel capacity in a discrete set of channels. J Acoust Soc Am 1968; 44: 13-18.
14. Hillenbrand J, Getty LA, Clark MJ, Wheeler K: Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97(pt 1):3099-3111.
15. Hong RS, Rubinstein JT: High-rate conditioning pulse trains in cochlear implants: dynamic range measures with sinusoidal stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 2003; 114(pt 1):3327-3342.
16. Hong RS, Rubinstein JT: Conditioning pulse trains in cochlear implants: effects on loudness growth. Otol Neurotol 2006; 27: 50-56.
17. IEEE: IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measurements. New York, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, 1969.
18. Kiefer J, von Ilberg C, Rupprecht V, Hubner-Egner J, Knecht R: Optimized speech understanding with the continuous interleaved sampling speech coding strategy in patients with cochlear implants: effect of variations in stimulation rate and number of channels. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2000; 109: 1009-1020.
19. Kreft HA, Donaldson GS, Nelson DA: Effects of pulse rate and electrode array design on intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116: 2258-2268.
20. Lawson DT, Wilson BS, Zerbi M, Finley CC: Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Third Quarterly Progress Report. NIH Contract N01-DC-5-2103. Research Triangle Park, Center for Auditory Prosthesis Research, 1996.
21. Litvak L, Delgutte B, Eddington D: Improved neural representation of vowels in electric stimulation using desynchronizing pulse trains. J Acoust Soc Am 2003a;114(pt 1): 2099-2111.
22. Litvak LM, Delgutte B, Eddington DK: Improved temporal coding of sinusoids in electric stimulation of the auditory nerve using desynchronizing pulse trains. J Acoust Soc Am 2003b;114(pt 1):2079-2098.
23. Litvak LM, Smith ZM, Delgutte B, Eddington DK: Desynchronization of electrically evoked auditory nerve activity by highfrequency pulse trains of long duration. J Acoust Soc Am 2003c;114(pt 1):2066-2078.
24. Loizou PC, Poroy O: Minimum spectral contrast needed for vowel identification by normal hearing and cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 110(pt 1):1619-1627.
25. Loizou PC, Poroy O, Dorman M: The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 108: 790-802.
26. Matsuoka AJ, Abbas PJ, Rubinstein JT, Miller CA: The neurophysiological effects of stimulated auditory prosthesis stimulation. Seventh Quarterly Progress Report. NIH Contract N01-DC-6-2111. Iowa City, University of Iowa, 1998.
27. CI Speech with High Rates Audiol Neurotol 2011;16:113-123 123
28. Middlebrooks JC: Effects of cochlear-implant pulse rate and inter-channel timing on channel interactions and thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116: 452-468.
29. Miller GA, Nicely PE: An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. J Acoust Soc Am 1955; 227: 338-352.
30. Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA: Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95: 1085-1099.
31. Nie KB, Barco A, Zeng FG: Spectral and temporal cues in cochlear implant speech processing. Ear Hear 2006; 27: 208-217.
32. Peterson GE, Lehiste I: Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962; 27: 62-70.
33. Pfingst BE, Xu L, Thompson CS: Effects of carrier pulse rate and stimulation site on modulation detection by subjects with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121: 2236-2246.
34. Plant KL, Holden L, Skinner M, Arcaroli J, Whitford L, Law M, Nel E: Clinical evaluation of higher stimulation rates in the nucleus research platform 8 system. Ear Hear 2007; 28: 381-393.
35. Plant KL, Whitford LA, Psarros CE, Vandali AE: Parameter selection and programming recommendations for the ACE and CIS speech processing strategies in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Cochlear Implants Int 2002; 3: 104-125.
36. Robert ME: Condor ID. Los Angeles, House Ear Institute, 1997.
37. Rubinstein JT, Hong R: Signal coding in cochlear implants: exploiting stochastic effects of electrical stimulation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003; 191: 14-19.
38. Rubinstein JT, Wilson BS, Finley C, Abbas PJ: Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hear Res 1999; 127: 108-118.
39. Shannon RV, Jensvold A, Padilla M, Robert ME, Wang X: Consonant recordings for speech testing. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 106:L71-L74.
40. Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M: Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995; 270: 303-304.
41. Spahr AJ, Dorman MF: Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006; 130: 624-628.
42. Vandali AE, Whitford LA, Plant KL, Clark GM: Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear 2000; 21: 608-624.
43. van den Honert C, Stypulkowski PH: Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. 2. Single fiber recordings. Hear Res 1984; 14: 225-243.
44. Verschuur CA: Effect of stimulation rate on speech perception in adult users of the Med- El CIS speech processing strategy. Int J Audiol 2005; 44: 58-63.
45. Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, Wolford RD, Zerbi M: Design and evaluation of a continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) processing strategy for multichannel cochlear implants. J Rehabil Res Dev 1993; 30: 110-116.
46. Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, Zerbi M: Temporal representations with cochlear implants. Am J Otol 1997; 18(suppl):S30-S34.
47. Wilson BS, Lawson DT, Zerbi M, Finley C, van den Honert C: Speech processors for auditory prosthesis. Eighth Quarterly Progress Report. NIH Contract N01-DC-5-2103. Research Triangle Park, Center for Auditory Prosthesis Research, 1998.
48. Wilson BS, Wolford R, Lawson DT: Speech processors for auditory prosthesis. Seventh Quarterly Progress Report. NIH Contract N01-DC-8-2105. Research Triangle Park, Center for Auditory Prosthesis Research, 2000.
49. Xu L, Pfingst BE: Relative importance of temporal envelope and fine structure in lexicaltone perception. J Acoust Soc Am 2003; 114: 3024-3027.
50. Xu L, Thompson CS, Pfingst BE: Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 117: 3255-3267.
51. Xu L, Zheng Y: Spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 122: 1758-1764.