Comparison of the fine structure processing (FSP) strategy and the CIS strategy used in the MED-EL cochlear implant system: Speech intelligibility and music sound quality

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 50, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 279-287

  Magnusson, Lennart ^a  

^a SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Music perception; Paired comparison; Processing strategies; Speech intelligibility; Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; AUDITORY REHABILITATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HEARING; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MUSIC; NOISE; PATIENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PERCEPTION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PROSTHESIS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; TIME;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; FEMALE; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MUSIC; NOISE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; REHABILITATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED; SIGNAL DETECTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 79952607837     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2010.537378     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Amlani A.M., Rakerd B. & Punch J.L. 2006. Speech-clarity judgments of hearing-aid-processed speech in noise: Differing polar patterns and acoustic environments. Int J Audiol , 45, 319-330. (Pubitemid 44576326)
2. ANSI 1997. Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index. ANSI S3.5-1997 . New York: American National Standards Institute.
3. Arnoldner C., Riss D., Brunner M., Durisin M., Baumgartner W.D. et al. 2007. Speech and music perception with the new fi ne structure speech coding strategy: Preliminary results. Acta Otolaryngol , 127, 1298-1303. (Pubitemid 350175283)
4. Byrne D. 1994. Paired comparison procedures in hearing aid evaluations. Ear Hear , 15, 476-479.
5. Drennan W.R., Won J.H., Dasika V.K. & Rubinstein J.T. 2007. Effects of temporal fi ne structure on the lateralization of speech and on speech understanding in noise. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol , 8, 373-383. (Pubitemid 47222428)
6. Gfeller K., Christ A., Knutson J.F., Witt S., Murray K.T. et al. 2000. Musical backgrounds, listening habits, and aesthetic enjoyment of adult cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol , 11, 390-406.
7. Gfeller K., Turner C., Oleson J., Zhang X., Gantz B. et al. 2007. Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise. Ear Hear , 28, 412-423. (Pubitemid 46718021)
8. Hagerman B. 1976. Reliability in the determination of speech discrimination. Scand Audiol , 5, 219-228. (Pubitemid 8004018)
9. Hällgren M., Larsby B. & Arlinger S. 2006. A Swedish version of the Hearing In Noise Test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition. Int J Audiol , 45, 227-237.
10. Hochmair I., Nopp P., Jolly C., Schmidt M., Schosser H. et al. 2006. MED-EL Cochlear implants: State of the art and a glimpse into the future. Trends Amplif , 10, 201-219.
11. Huss M. & Moore B.C. 2005. Dead regions and pitch perception. J Acoust Soc Am , 117, 3841-3852. (Pubitemid 40807419)
12. Kiefer J., Hohl S., Sturzebecher E., Pfennigdorff T. & Gstoettner W. 2001. Comparison of speech recognition with different speech coding strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and ACE) and their relationship to telemetric measures of compound action potentials in the nucleus CI 24M cochlear implant system. Audiology , 40, 32-42. (Pubitemid 32229208)
13. Koch D.B., Osberger M.J., Segel P. & Kessler D. 2004. HiResolution and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution bionic ear: Using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability. Audiol Neurootol , 9, 214-223. (Pubitemid 38812969)
14. Kong Y.Y., Cruz R., Jones J.A. & Zeng F.G. 2004. Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. Ear Hear , 25, 173-185. (Pubitemid 38451766)
15. Lassaletta L., Castro A., Bastarrica M., Perez-Mora R., Madero R. et al. 2007. Does music perception have an impact on quality of life following cochlear implantation? Acta Otolaryngol , 127, 682-686. (Pubitemid 46934140)
16. Liden G. 1954. Speech audiometry: An experimental and clinical study with Swedish language material. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl , 114, 1-145.
17. Looi V. 2008. The effect of cochlear implantation on music perception. Otorinolaringol , 58, 169-190.
18. Looi V., McDermott H., McKay C. & Hickson L. 2007. Comparisons of quality ratings for music by cochlear implant and hearing aid users. Ear Hear , 28, 59S-61S. (Pubitemid 46673662)
19. Looi V., McDermott H., McKay C. & Hickson L. 2008. Music perception of cochlear implant users compared with that of hearing aid users. Ear Hear , 29, 421-434. (Pubitemid 351652237)
20. Magnusson L., Karlsson M., Ringdahl A. & Israelsson B. 2001. Comparison of calculated, measured, and self-assessed intelligibility of speech in noise for hearing-aid users. Scand Audiol , 30, 160-171. (Pubitemid 32945958)
21. Mirza S., Douglas S., Lindsey P., Hildreth T. & Hawthorne M. 2003. Appreciation of music in adult patients with cochlear implants: A patient questionnaire. Cochlear Implants Int , 4, 85-95. (Pubitemid 36896610)
22. Nie K., Stickney G. & Zeng F.G. 2005. Encoding frequency modulation to improve cochlear implant performance in noise. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng , 52, 64-73. (Pubitemid 40065610)
23. Riss D., Arnoldner C., Baumgartner W.D., Kaider A. & Hamzavi J.S. 2008. A new fi ne structure speech coding strategy: Speech perception at a reduced number of channels. Otol Neurotol , 29, 784-788.
24. Riss D., Arnoldner C., Reiss S., Baumgartner W.D. & Hamzavi J.S. 2009. One-year results using the Opus speech processor with the fi ne structure speech coding strategy. Acta Otolaryngol , 129, 988-991.
25. Skinner M.W., Holden L.K., Whitford L.A., Plant K.L., Psarros C. et al. 2002. Speech recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults. Ear Hear , 23, 207-223. (Pubitemid 34625510)
26. Stickney G.S., Assmann P.F., Chang J. & Zeng F.G. 2007. Effects of cochlear implant processing and fundamental frequency on the intelligibility of competing sentences. J Acoust Soc Am , 122, 1069-1078. (Pubitemid 47205505)
27. Stohl J.S., Throckmorton C.S. & Collins L.M. 2008. Assessing the pitch structure associated with multiple rates and places for cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am , 123, 1043-1053. (Pubitemid 351208313)
28. Wilson B.S. & Dorman M.F. 2008. Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future. Hear Res , 242, 3-21.
29. Wilson B.S., Finley C.C., Lawson D.T., Wolford R.D., Eddington D.K. et al. 1991. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature , 352, 236-238. (Pubitemid 21912323)
30. Xu L. & Pfingst B.E. 2008. Spectral and temporal cues for speech recognition: Implications for auditory prostheses. Hear Res , 242, 132-140.
31. Zeng F.G., Rebscher S., Harrison W., Sun X. & Feng H. 2008. Cochlear implants: System design, integration, and evaluation. IEE Rev Biomed Eng , 1, 115-142.