Speech Recognition as a Function of the Number of Electrodes Used in the SPEAK Cochlear Implant Speech Processor

1997 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 1201-1215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim E. Fishman ◽  
Robert V. Shannon ◽  
William H. Slattery
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Spectral Information ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Average Performance ◽  
Speech Stimuli ◽  
Monosyllabic Words

Speech recognition was measured in listeners with the Nucleus-22 SPEAK speech processing strategy as a function of the number of electrodes. Speech stimuli were analyzed into 20 frequency bands and processed according to the usual SPEAK processing strategy. In the normal clinical processor each electrode is assigned to represent the output of one filter. To create reduced-electrode processors the output of several adjacent filters were directed to a single electrode, resulting in processors with 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, and 20 electrodes. The overall spectral bandwidth was preserved, but the number of active electrodes was progressively reduced. After a 2-day period of adjustment to each processor, speech recognition performance was measured on medial consonants, vowels, monosyllabic words, and sentences. Performance with a single electrode processor was poor in all listeners, and average performance increased dramatically on all test materials as the number of electrodes was increased from 1 to 4. No differences in average performance were observed on any test in the 7-, 10-, and 20-electrode conditions. On sentence and consonant tests there was no difference between average performance with the 4-electrode and 20-electrode processors. This pattern of results suggests that cochlear implant listeners are not able to make full use of the spectral information on all 20 electrodes. Further research is necessary to understand the reasons for this limitation and to understand how to increase the amount of spectral information in speech received by implanted listeners.

Efficacy of a Cochlear Implant Simultaneous Analog Stimulation Strategy Coupled with a Monopolar Electrode Configuration

2005 ◽  
Vol 114 (11) ◽  
pp. 886-893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Xu ◽  
Teresa A. Zwolan ◽  
Catherine S. Thompson ◽  
Bryan E. Pfingst
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Electrode Configuration ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Open Set ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test

Objectives: The present study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and clinical feasibility of using monopolar stimulation with the Clarion Simultaneous Analog Stimulation (SAS) strategy in patients with cochlear implants. Methods: Speech recognition by 10 Clarion cochlear implant users was evaluated by means of 4 different speech processing strategy/electrode configuration combinations; ie, SAS and Continuous Interleaved Sampling (CIS) strategies were each used with monopolar (MP) and bipolar (BP) electrode configurations. The test measures included consonants, vowels, consonant-nucleus-consonant words, and Hearing in Noise Test sentences with a +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Additionally, subjective judgments of sound quality were obtained for each strategy/configuration combination. Results: All subjects but 1 demonstrated open-set speech recognition with the SAS/MP combination. The group mean Hearing in Noise Test sentence score for the SAS/MP combination was 31.6% (range, 0% to 92%) correct, as compared to 25.0%, 46.7%, and 37.8% correct for the CIS/BP, CIS/MP, and SAS/BP combinations, respectively. Intersubject variability was high, and there were no significant differences in mean speech recognition scores or mean preference ratings among the 4 strategy/configuration combinations tested. Individually, the best speech recognition performance was with the subject's everyday strategy/configuration combination in 72% of the applicable cases. If the everyday strategy was excluded from the analysis, the subjects performed best with the SAS/MP combination in 37.5% of the remaining cases. Conclusions: The SAS processing strategy with an MP electrode configuration gave reasonable speech recognition in most subjects, even though subjects had minimal previous experience with this strategy/configuration combination. The SAS/MP combination might be particularly appropriate for patients for whom a full dynamic range of electrical hearing could not be achieved with a BP configuration.

A Within-Subject Comparison of Adult Patients Using the Nucleus F0F1F2 and F0F1F2B3B4B5 Speech Processing Strategies

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron J. Parkinson ◽  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
George G. Woodworth ◽  
Mary W. Lowder ◽  
Bruce J. Gantz
Keyword(s):  
Speech Processing ◽  
The Other ◽  
Superior Performance ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Average Performance ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Consonant Recognition ◽  
Subject Comparison

This study compares the Nucleus F0F1F2 and F0F1F2B3B4B5 (also known as “Multipeak” or “Mpeak”) processing schemes in 17 patients wearing the Mini Speech Processor. All patients had at least 18 months implant experience using the F0F1F2 processing strategy. For this study, they were switched to the F0F1F2B3B4B5 processing strategy for 3 months. They then returned to using the F0F1F2 strategy for 3 months, then used the F0F1F2B3B4B5 strategy again for 3 months, and lastly used the F0F1F2 strategy for 3 months. Performance was evaluated with both schemes after each interval, using speech recognition tests and subjective ratings. Overall, differences between the results for the two processing schemes were not large. Average performance was somewhat better for the F0F1F2B3B4B5 strategy for word and sentence identification, but not for any of the other speech measures. Superior performance was observed in 8 patients with the F0F1F2B3B4B5 strategy. However, 6 of the 8 individuals were significantly better on only one of the six speech measures in the test battery. The other 2 patients performed better on two of the speech measures. Superior performance was also observed in 3 patients with the F0F1F2 strategy for consonant recognition. For the remaining patients, there was little difference in their performance with the two strategies. Information transmission analyses indicated that the F0F1F2B3B4B5 strategy transmitted consonant duration and frication cues more efficiently than F0F1F2. Experience with one strategy appeared to benefit performance with the other strategy.

The Effects of Paired versus Sequential Stimulation on Speech Recognition Outcomes of Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Meredith A. Holcomb ◽  
James R. Dornhoffer ◽  
Theodore R McRackan
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Sound Processing ◽  
Processing Strategies

<b><i>Purpose:</i></b> Cochlear implant (CI) sound-processing strategies are important to the overall success of a CI recipient. This study aimed to determine the effects of 2 Advanced Bionics (AB) CI-processing strategies, Optima-S and Optima-P, on speech recognition outcomes in adult CI users. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A retrospective chart review was completed at a tertiary academic medical center. Seventeen post-lingually deafened adult CI users (median age = 58.6 years; age range: 23.5–78.9 years) with long-term use of a paired sound-processing strategy (Optima-P) were reprogrammed with a sequential strategy (Optima-S). Demographic data and speech recognition scores with pre- and post-intervention analyses were collected and compared with respect to the 95% confidence interval for common CI word and sentence recognition tests. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Using Optima-S sound-processing strategy, all patients (100%) performed equivalent or better on word and sentence testing than with Optima-P. More specifically, 17.6, 41.2, and 58.8% of the patients performed above the 95% confidence interval for speech recognition conditions of monosyllabic words, sentences in quiet, and sentences in noise, respectively. All patients (100%) selected Optima-S as their preferred strategy for future CI use. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Speech recognition performance with Optima-S processing strategy was stable or improved compared to results with Optima-P in all tested conditions, and subjective preference of Optima-S was selected by all patients. Given these results, CI clinicians should consider programming AB CI users with Optima-S sound-processing strategy to optimize overall speech recognition performance.

scholarly journals Multivariate Predictors of Music Perception and Appraisal by Adult Cochlear Implant Users

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (02) ◽  
pp. 120-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Gfeller ◽  
Jacob Oleson ◽  
John F. Knutson ◽  
Patrick Breheny ◽  
Virginia Driscoll ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Music Perception ◽  
Life Experience ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Strong Predictor ◽  
Music Listening ◽  
Linear Regression Models ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Music Appraisal

The research examined whether performance by adult cochlear implant recipients on a variety of recognition and appraisal tests derived from real-world music could be predicted from technological, demographic, and life experience variables, as well as speech recognition scores. A representative sample of 209 adults implanted between 1985 and 2006 participated. Using multiple linear regression models and generalized linear mixed models, sets of optimal predictor variables were selected that effectively predicted performance on a test battery that assessed different aspects of music listening. These analyses established the importance of distinguishing between the accuracy of music perception and the appraisal of musical stimuli when using music listening as an index of implant success. Importantly, neither device type nor processing strategy predicted music perception or music appraisal. Speech recognition performance was not a strong predictor of music perception, and primarily predicted music perception when the test stimuli included lyrics. Additionally, limitations in the utility of speech perception in predicting musical perception and appraisal underscore the utility of music perception as an alternative outcome measure for evaluating implant outcomes. Music listening background, residual hearing (i.e., hearing aid use), cognitive factors, and some demographic factors predicted several indices of perceptual accuracy or appraisal of music. La investigación examinó si el desempeño, por parte de adultos receptores de un implante coclear, sobre una variedad de pruebas de reconocimiento y evaluación derivadas de la música del mundo real, podrían predecirse a partir de variables tecnológicas, demográficas y de experiencias de vida, así como de puntajes de reconocimiento del lenguaje. Participó una muestra representativa de 209 adultos implantados entre 1965 y el 2006. Usando múltiples modelos de regresión lineal y modelos mixtos lineales generalizados, se seleccionaron grupos de variables óptimas de predicción, que pudieran predecir efectivamente el desempeño por medio de una batería de pruebas que permitiera evaluar diferentes aspectos de la apreciación musical. Estos análisis establecieron la importancia de distinguir entre la exactitud en la percepción musical y la evaluación de estímulos musicales cuando se utiliza la apreciación musical como un índice de éxito en la implantación. Importantemente, ningún tipo de dispositivo o estrategia de procesamiento predijo la percepción o la evaluación musical. El desempeño en el reconocimiento del lenguaje no fue un elemento fuerte de predicción, y llegó a predecir primariamente la percepción musical cuando los estímulos de prueba incluyeron las letras. Adicionalmente, las limitaciones en la utilidad de la percepción del lenguaje a la hora de predecir la percepción y la evaluación musical, subrayan la utilidad de la percepción de la música como una medida alternativa de resultado para evaluar la implantación coclear. La música de fondo, la audición residual (p.e., el uso de auxiliares auditivos), los factores cognitivos, y algunos factores demográficos predijeron varios índices de exactitud y evaluación perceptual de la música.

Performance of the Piecewise Rate Modulation Strategy to Convey Mandarin Tonal Information for Cochlear Implant Using Neural Network Simulation

2011 ◽  
Vol 474-476 ◽  
pp. 1049-1052
Author(s):  
Tian Guan ◽  
Qin Gong ◽  
Tong Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Neural Network ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Spectral Information ◽  
Rate Variation ◽  
Tonal Language ◽  
Rate Modulation ◽  
Stimulus Rate ◽  
Monosyllabic Words ◽  
Electric Stimulator ◽  
Mandarin Tones

In order to improve the pitch perception of cochlear implant (CI) users speaking tonal language, it has been suggested to frequency-modulate the electric stimulus rate by the spectral information of the tonal language. A piecewise CI rate modulation strategy has been recently proposed, which not only encoded the spectral information but also took account of the psychological perception feature for the stimulus rate variation by CI users. This paper further examines its performance to convey Mandarin tonal information by a neural-network-based simulation. The experimental results shown that the correct rates to identify the four Mandarin tones of 80 Mandarin monosyllabic words were 95%, 95%, 100% and 100%, respectively, indicating that the piecewise rate modulation strategy might efficiently convey Mandarin tonal information. Therefore, the piecewise rate modulation strategy could help to design novel CI electric stimulator and enhance the speech perception ability of CI users speaking tonal language, such as Mandarin.

Association of Speech Processor Technology and Speech Recognition Outcomes in Adult Cochlear Implant Users

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 595-601
Author(s):  
Peter R. Dixon ◽  
David Shipp ◽  
Kari Smilsky ◽  
Vincent Y. Lin ◽  
Trung Le ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Processor

scholarly journals Speech Perception for Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients in a Realistic Background Noise: Effectiveness of Preprocessing Strategies and External Options for Improving Speech Recognition in Noise

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (07) ◽  
pp. 441-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
René H. Gifford ◽  
Lawrence J. Revit
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Single Subject ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Improved Performance ◽  
Listening In Noise

Background: Although cochlear implant patients are achieving increasingly higher levels of performance, speech perception in noise continues to be problematic. The newest generations of implant speech processors are equipped with preprocessing and/or external accessories that are purported to improve listening in noise. Most speech perception measures in the clinical setting, however, do not provide a close approximation to real-world listening environments. Purpose: To assess speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in the presence of a realistic restaurant simulation generated by an eight-loudspeaker (R-SPACE™) array in order to determine whether commercially available preprocessing strategies and/or external accessories yield improved sentence recognition in noise. Research Design: Single-subject, repeated-measures design with two groups of participants: Advanced Bionics and Cochlear Corporation recipients. Study Sample: Thirty-four subjects, ranging in age from 18 to 90 yr (mean 54.5 yr), participated in this prospective study. Fourteen subjects were Advanced Bionics recipients, and 20 subjects were Cochlear Corporation recipients. Intervention: Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in semidiffuse restaurant noise originating from an eight-loudspeaker array were assessed with the subjects' preferred listening programs as well as with the addition of either Beam™ preprocessing (Cochlear Corporation) or the T-Mic® accessory option (Advanced Bionics). Data Collection and Analysis: In Experiment 1, adaptive SRTs with the Hearing in Noise Test sentences were obtained for all 34 subjects. For Cochlear Corporation recipients, SRTs were obtained with their preferred everyday listening program as well as with the addition of Focus preprocessing. For Advanced Bionics recipients, SRTs were obtained with the integrated behind-the-ear (BTE) mic as well as with the T-Mic. Statistical analysis using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) evaluated the effects of the preprocessing strategy or external accessory in reducing the SRT in noise. In addition, a standard t-test was run to evaluate effectiveness across manufacturer for improving the SRT in noise. In Experiment 2, 16 of the 20 Cochlear Corporation subjects were reassessed obtaining an SRT in noise using the manufacturer-suggested “Everyday,” “Noise,” and “Focus” preprocessing strategies. A repeated-measures ANOVA was employed to assess the effects of preprocessing. Results: The primary findings were (i) both Noise and Focus preprocessing strategies (Cochlear Corporation) significantly improved the SRT in noise as compared to Everyday preprocessing, (ii) the T-Mic accessory option (Advanced Bionics) significantly improved the SRT as compared to the BTE mic, and (iii) Focus preprocessing and the T-Mic resulted in similar degrees of improvement that were not found to be significantly different from one another. Conclusion: Options available in current cochlear implant sound processors are able to significantly improve speech understanding in a realistic, semidiffuse noise with both Cochlear Corporation and Advanced Bionics systems. For Cochlear Corporation recipients, Focus preprocessing yields the best speech-recognition performance in a complex listening environment; however, it is recommended that Noise preprocessing be used as the new default for everyday listening environments to avoid the need for switching programs throughout the day. For Advanced Bionics recipients, the T-Mic offers significantly improved performance in noise and is recommended for everyday use in all listening environments.

Effect of Different Signal-Processing Options on Speech-in-Noise Recognition for Cochlear Implant Recipients with the Cochlear CP810 Speech Processor

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (04) ◽  
pp. 367-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa G. Potts ◽  
Kelly A. Kolb
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Noise Cancellation ◽  
Space Environment ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Directional Filtering ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Db Difference

Background: Difficulty understanding speech in the presence of background noise is a common report among cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Several speech-processing options designed to improve speech recognition, especially in noise, are currently available in the Cochlear Nucleus CP810 speech processor. These include adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO), autosensitivity control (ASC), Beam, and Zoom. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate CI recipients’ speech-in-noise recognition to determine which currently available processing option or options resulted in best performance in a simulated restaurant environment. Research Design: Experimental study with one study group. The independent variable was speech-processing option, and the dependent variable was the reception threshold for sentences score. Study Sample: Thirty-two adult CI recipients. Intervention: Eight processing options were tested: Beam, Beam + ASC, Beam + ADRO, Beam + ASC + ADRO, Zoom, Zoom + ASC, Zoom + ADRO, and Zoom + ASC + ADRO. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants repeated Hearing in Noise Test sentences presented at a 0° azimuth, with R-Space restaurant noise presented from a 360° eight-loudspeaker array at 70 dB sound pressure level. A one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to analyze differences in Beam options, Zoom options, and Beam versus Zoom options. Results: Among the Beam options, Beam + ADRO was significantly poorer than Beam only, Beam + ASC, and Beam + ASC + ADRO. A 1.6-dB difference was observed between the best (Beam only) and poorest (Beam + ADRO) options. Among the Zoom options, Zoom only and Zoom + ADRO were significantly poorer than Zoom + ASC. A 2.2-dB difference was observed between the best (Zoom + ASC) and poorest (Zoom only) options. The comparison between Beam and Zoom options showed one significant difference, with Zoom only significantly poorer than Beam only. No significant difference was found between the other Beam and Zoom options (Beam + ASC vs Zoom + ASC, Beam + ADRO vs Zoom + ADRO, and Beam + ASC + ADRO vs Zoom + ASC + ADRO). The best processing option varied across subjects, with an almost equal number of participants performing best with a Beam option (n = 15) compared with a Zoom option (n = 17). There were no significant demographic or audiological moderating variables for any option. Conclusions: The results showed no significant differences between adaptive directionality (Beam) and fixed directionality (Zoom) when ASC was active in the R-Space environment. This finding suggests that noise-reduction processing is extremely valuable in loud semidiffuse environments in which the effectiveness of directional filtering might be diminished. However, there was no significant difference between the Beam-only and Beam + ASC options, which is most likely related to the additional noise cancellation performed by the Beam option (i.e., two-stage directional filtering and noise cancellation). In addition, the processing options with ADRO resulted in the poorest performances. This could be related to how the CI recipients were programmed or the loud noise level used in this study. The best processing option varied across subjects, but the majority performed best with directional filtering (Beam or Zoom) in combination with ASC. Therefore in a loud semidiffuse environment, the use of either Beam + ASC or Zoom + ASC is recommended.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document