Results of a pilot study with a signal enhancement algorithm for HiRes 120 cochlear implant users

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 31, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1386-1390

  Buechner, Andreas ^a   Brendel, Martina ^a,b   Saalfeld, Hilke ^a   Litvak, Leonid ^c   Frohne Buechner, Carolin ^a,b   Lenarz, Thomas ^a  

^a HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

^b Advanced Bionics GmbH   (Germany)

^c Advanced Bionics   (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Noise reduction; Preprocessing; Signal enhancement; Speech in noise

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; FEMALE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PILOT STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; BIOMEDICAL ENHANCEMENT; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; DEAFNESS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PILOT PROJECTS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 78649497796     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: 15374505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181f1cdc6     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Nelson PB, Jin SH, Carney AE, Nelson DA. Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normalhearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;113:961-8.
2. Spriet A, van Deun L, Eftaxiadis K, et al. Speech understanding in background noise with the two-microphone adaptive beamformer BEAM in the nucleus freedom cochlear implant system. Ear Hear 2007;28:62-72.
3. Wouters J, Van den Berghe J. Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implantees with a two-microphone monaural adaptive noise reduction system. Ear Hear 2001;22:420-30.
4. Brendel M, Buechner A, Krueger B, Frohne-Buechner C, Lenarz T. Evaluation of the harmony sound processor in combination with the speech coding strategy HiRes 120. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:199-202.
5. Firszt JB, Holden L, Reeder R, Skinner MW. Spectral channels and speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients using HiRes 120 sound processing. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:146-52.
6. Dillon H. Hearing Aids. Stuttgart, Germany: Georg Thieme Verlag, 2001.
7. Hochmair-Desoyer I, Schulz E, Moser L, Schmidt M. The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. Am J Otol 1997;18: S83.
8. Cox RM, Alexander GC. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). Ear Hear 1995;16:176-86.
9. Lehnhardt E, Laszig R. Praxis der Audiometrie. Stuttgart, Germany: Georg Thieme Verlag, 2000.
10. Yang L, Fu Q. Spectral subtraction-based speech enhancement for cochlear implant patients in background noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;117:1001-3.
11. Hu Y, Loizou PC, Li N, Kasturi K. Use of a sigmoidal-shaped function for noise attenuation in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2007;122:128-34.
12. Stickney GS, Zeng FG, Litovsky R, Assmann P. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;116:1081-91.
13. Chung K, Zeng FG, Waltzman S. Utilizing hearing aid directional microphones and noise reduction algorithms to improve speech understanding and listening preferences for cochlear implant users. Int Congr Ser 2004;1273:89-92.
14. Marzinzik M. Noise Reduction Schemes for Digital Hearing Aids and Their Use for the Hearing Impaired. Oldenburg, Germany: Fachbereich Physik der Universität Oldenburg, 2000 (dissertation). Available at: http://www.bis.uni-oldenburg.de/dissertation/2001/marnoi00/pdf/marnoi00.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2009.
15. Wittkop T. Two-channel noise reduction algorithms motivated by models of binaural interaction. Oldenburg, Germany: Fachbereich Physik der Universität Oldenburg, 2001 (dissertation). Available at: http://docserver.bis.unioldenburg.de/publikationen/dissertation/2001/wittwo01/ pdf/wittwo01.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2008.
16. Shannon RV, Fu QJ, Galvin J 3rd. The number of spectral channels required for speech recognition depends on the difficulty of the listening situation. Acta Otolaryngol 2004;50-4.
17. Moore BC. Coding of sounds in the auditory system and its relevance to signal processing and coding in cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:243-54.
18. 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;110:1150-63.
19. Haumann S, Buchner A, Lenarz T. Influence of the input dynamic range of cochlear implant processors on speech perception. Presentation at the 2nd International Symposium of the Politzer Society on Otosclerosis and Stapes Surgery, Biarritz, France, May 8-10, 2008.
20. George EL, Festen JM, Houtgast T. Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearingimpaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2006;120:2295-311.
21. Rubinstein JT. How cochlear implants encode speech. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;12:444-8.
22. 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;104:3586-96.
23. Fu QJ, Chinchilla S, Galvin JJ. The role of spectral and temporal cues in voice gender discrimination by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2004;5:253-60.