Speech perception performance as a function of stimulus pulse rate and processing strategy preference for the Cochlear™ Nucleus ® CI24RE device: Relation to perceptual threshold and loudness comfort profiles

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 49, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 657-666

  Battmer, Rolf Dieter ^a   Dillier, Norbert ^b   Lai, Wai Kong ^b   Begall, Klaus ^c   Leypon, Elisabeth Estrada ^d   González, Juan C Falcón ^e   Manrique, Manuel ^f   Morera, Constantino ^g   Müller Deile, Joachim ^h   Wesarg, Thomas ⁱ   Zarowski, Andrzej ^j   Killian, Matthijs J ^k   Von Wallenberg, Ernst ^l   Smoorenburg, Guido F ^m  

^a HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c HNO Klinik   (Germany)

^d Instituto de Otologia Garcia Ibanez   (Spain)

^e HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO INSULAR DE GRAN CANARIA   (Spain)

^f UNIVERSITY CLINIC OF NAVARRA   (Spain)

^g HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO LA FE   (Spain)

^h UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL SCHLESWIG HOLSTEIN   (Germany)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^j Universitaire NKO Dienst   (Belgium)

^k Cochlear Technological Center ^*  (Belgium)

^l Cochlear AG ^*  (Switzerland)

^m La Palladienne   (France)

more..

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Processor fitting; Speech perception; Stimulation rate

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY REHABILITATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CLINICAL TRIAL; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ELECTROSTIMULATION; EUROPE; HEARING; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATIENT; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PROSTHESIS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; EUROPE; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FITTING; REHABILITATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77955606263     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992021003801471     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Brandt T. & Kollmeier B. 2002. Effi cient adaptive procedure for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. J Acoust Soc Am, 111(6), 2801-2810.
2. Büchner A., Frohne-Büchner C., Gärtner L., Lesinski-Schiedat A., Battmer R-D. et al. 2006. Evaluation of Advanced Bionics high resolution mode. Int J Audiol, 45, 407-416.
3. th European Symposium on Paediatric Cochlear Implantation, ' s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
4. Cox R.M. & Alexander G.C. 1995. The abbreviated profi le of hearing aid benefi t (APHAB). Ear Hear, 16(2), 176-186.
5. Cox R.M. 1997. Administration and application of the APHAB. Hearing Journal, 50(4), 32-48.
6. Friesen L., Shannon R.V. & Cruz R.J. 2005. Effects of stimulation rate on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Audiol Neurotol, 10, 169-184.
7. Fu Q.-J. & Shannon R.W. 1999. Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by Nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 589-597.
8. Hahlbrock K.H. 1957. Sprachaudiometrie. Grundlagen und praktische Anwendung einer Sprachaudiometrie f ü r das deutsche Sprachgebiet. Stuttgart: Thieme.
9. Hey M., Begall K., Offeciers E., Zarowski A., Hessel H. et al. 2006. Evaluation of the Nucleus Freedom Performance: Rate, Strategy & Smartsound Preference. XXVIIIth International Congress of Audiology, Innsbruck, Austria; September 3-6, paper L125.
10. Holden L.K., Skinnner M.W., Holden T. & Demorest M.E. 2002. Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. Ear Hear, 23, 463-476.
11. Houtgast T., Steeneken H.J.M. & Plomp R. 1980. Predicting speech intelligibility in rooms from the modulation transfer function. Acustica, 46, 59-72.
12. Kiefer J., von Ilberg C., Rupprecht V., Huber-Egener J., Baumgartner W. et al. 1999. Optimized speech understanding with the CIS-speech coding strategy in cochlear implants. In: S.B. Waltzman & N. Cohen (eds.), Cochlear Implants, New York: Thieme Medical and Scientifi c.
13. Killian M.J.P. 1994. Excitability of the Electrically Stimulated Auditory Nerve. Dissertation, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
14. Lawson D.T., Wilson B.S., Zerbi M. & Finley C.C. 1996. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Third Quarterly Progress Report, NIH project N01-DC-5-2103, Neural Prosthesis Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
15. Loizou P.C., Poroy O. & Dorman M. 2000. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am, 108, 790-820.
16. McKay C.M., Henshall K.R. & Hull A.E. 2005. The effect of rate of stimulation on perception of spectral shape by cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am, 118, 386-392
17. Müller-Deile J., Morsnowski A., Wesarg T., Laszig R., Zarowski A. et al. 2006. Performance and preferences for ACE and CIS strategies with the Nucleus Freedom system. 8th European Symposium on Pediatric Co-chlear Implantation, Venice, Italy; March 25-28, paper FP220.
18. Offeciers E., Zarowski A., Laszig R., Wesarg T., Müller-Deile J. et al. 2006. Nucleus Freedom performance and preferences for ACE and CIS strategies. 9th International Conference on Cochlear Implants, Vienna, Austria; June 14-17, paper Z1-O5.
19. Patrick J.F., Busby P.A. & Gibson P.J. 2006. The development of the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear implant system. Trends Amplif, 10, 175-200.
20. Pelizzone M., Tinembart J., Francois J., Steger D., Boex C. et al. 1998. Very-high stimulation rates for cochlear implants. 4th European Symposium on Paediatric Cochlear Implantation, ' s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
21. Plant K.L., Whitford L.A., Psarros C.E. & Vandali A.E. 2002. Parametric selection and programming recommendations for the ACE and CIS speech-processing strategies in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Cochlear Implants Int, 3, 104-125.
22. Plant K., Holden L., Skinnner M., Arcaroli J., Whitford L. et al. 2007. Clinical evaluation of higher stimulus rates in the Nucleus Research Platform 8 system. Ear Hear, 28, 381-393.
23. Rose J.E., Brugge J.F., Anderson D.J. & Hind J.E. 1967. Phase-locked responses to low-frequency tones in single auditory nerve fi bers of the squirrel monkey. J Neurophysiol, 30, 769-793.
24. Rubinstein J.T., Wilson B.S., Finley C.C. & Abbas P.J. 1999. Pseudospon-taneous activity: Stochastic independence of auditory nerve fi bers with electrical stimulation. Hear Res, 127, 108-118.
25. Vandali A.E., Whitford L.A., Plant K.L. & Clark G.M. 2000. Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: Using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear, 21, 608-624.
26. Van Tasel D.J., Greenfi eld D.G., Logemann J.J. & Nelson D.A. 1992. Temporal cues for consonant recognition: Training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 92, 1247-1257.
27. Van Wijngaarden S.J. & Houtgast T. 2004. Effect of talker and speaking style on the speech transmission index. J Acoust Soc Am, 115, 38-41.
28. Verschuur C.A. 2005. Effect of stimulation rate on speech perception in adult users of the Med-El CIS speech processing strategy. Int J Audiol, 44, 58-63.
29. Weber B.P., Lai W.K., Dillier N., von Wallenberg E.L., Killian M.J.P. et al. 2007. Performance and preference for ACE stimulation rates obtained with Nucleus RP 8 and Freedom system. Ear Hear, 28, 46S-48.
30. Wesarg T., Battmer R-D., Cavallé Garrido L., Dillier N., Garcia-Ibanez L., Hey M. et al. 2010. Effect of changing pulse rate on profi le parameters of perceptual thresholds and loudness comfort levels and relation to ECAP thresholds in recipients of the Nucleus CI24RE device. Int J Audiol, in press