Spectral contrast enhancement in a cochlear implant speech processor

2010 ◽  
Vol 128 (5) ◽  
pp. 3275
Author(s):  
Aniket Saoji
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Contrast Enhancement ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Spectral Contrast

scholarly journals Effect of Spectral Contrast Enhancement on Speech-on-Speech Intelligibility and Voice Cue Sensitivity in Cochlear Implant Users

2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Nawal El Boghdady ◽  
Florian Langner ◽  
Etienne Gaudrain ◽  
Deniz Başkent ◽  
Waldo Nogueira
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Contrast Enhancement ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Spectral Contrast

The Effect of Upgrading Cochlear Implant Speech Processor on Programming Parameters: Preliminary Results

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aysun Parlak Kocabay ◽  
Merve Ikiz ◽  
Samet Kilic ◽  
Bensu Akcin ◽  
Gonca Sennaroglu
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Preliminary Results

Using Evoked Compound Action Potentials to Assess Activation of Electrodes and Predict C-Levels in the Tempo+ Cochlear Implant Speech Processor

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 134-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isaac Alvarez ◽  
Angel de la Torre ◽  
Manuel Sainz ◽  
Cristina Roldán ◽  
Hansjoerg Schoesser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Action Potentials ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Compound Action Potentials ◽  
Compound Action

Effect of Speech Processor Program Modifications on Cochlear Implant Recipients’ Threshold and Maximum Acceptable Loudness Levels

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Sun ◽  
Margarate W. Skinner ◽  
S. Y. Liu ◽  
T. S. Huang
Keyword(s):  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Everyday Life ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Active Electrode ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Significant Change ◽  
Upper Boundary

This study’s purpose was to determine whether or not modifications in speech processor electrical stimulation levels were associated with changes in five Nucleus 22 cochlear implant recipients’ thresholds or maximum acceptable loudness levels (MALs). These modifications in minimum and maximum stimulation levels were made to optimize hearing in everyday life. One threshold and one MAL were obtained on each active electrode during six, weekly test sessions, three before and three after program modification. Only one participant had a significant change in threshold after program modification; this participant and four others had significant changes in MAL. Participants’ threshold variability was the same, but MAL variability was higher than that observed in other studies. Because these participants had no experience making MAL judgments prior to this study, this result suggests that implant recipients should be given sufficient practice in making MAL judgments to provide a stable clinical estimate of the upper boundary of the electrical dynamic range.

scholarly journals Comparison of Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential Thresholds and Loudness Estimates for the Stimuli Used to Program the Advanced Bionics Cochlear Implant

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (01) ◽  
pp. 016-027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eun Kyung Jeon ◽  
Carolyn J. Brown ◽  
Christine P. Etler ◽  
Sara O'Brien ◽  
Li-Kuei Chiou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Compound Action Potential ◽  
Behavioral Measures ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Compound Action Potentials ◽  
Evoked Compound Action Potential ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Compound Action

Background: In the mid-1990s, Cochlear Corporation introduced a cochlear implant (CI) to the market that was equipped with hardware that made it possible to record electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) from CI users of all ages. Over the course of the next decade, many studies were published that compared ECAP thresholds with levels used to program the speech processor of the Nucleus CI. In 2001 Advanced Bionics Corporation introduced the Clarion CII cochlear implant (the Clarion CII internal device is also known as the CII Bionic Ear). This cochlear implant was also equipped with a system that allowed measurement of the ECAP. While a great deal is known about how ECAP thresholds compare with the levels used to program the speech processor of the Nucleus CI, relatively few studies have reported comparisons between ECAP thresholds and the levels used to program the speech processor of the Advanced Bionics CI. Purpose: To explore the relationship between ECAP thresholds and behavioral measures of perceptual dynamic range for the range of stimuli commonly used to program the speech processor of the Advanced Bionics CI. Research Design: This prospective and experimental study uses correlational and descriptive statistics to define the relationship between ECAP thresholds and perceptual dynamic range measures. Study Sample: Twelve postlingually deafened adults participated in this study. All were experienced users of the Advanced Bionics CI system. Data Collection and Analysis: ECAP thresholds were recorded using the commercially available SoundWave software. Perceptual measures of threshold (T-level), most comfortable level (M-level), and maximum comfortable level (C-level) were obtained using both “tone bursts” and “speech bursts.” The relationship between these perceptual and electrophysiological variables was defined using paired t-tests as well as correlation and linear regression. Results: ECAP thresholds were significantly correlated with the perceptual dynamic range measures studied; however, correlations were not strong. Analysis of the individual data revealed considerable discrepancy between the contour of ECAP threshold versus electrode function and the behavioral loudness estimates used for programming. Conclusion: ECAP thresholds recorded from Advanced Bionics cochlear implant users always indicated levels where the programming stimulus was audible for the listener. However, the correlation between ECAP thresholds and M-levels (the primary metric used to program the speech processor of the Advanced Bionics CI), while statistically significant, was quite modest. If programming levels are to be determined on the basis of ECAP thresholds, care should be taken to ensure that stimulation is not uncomfortably loud, particularly on the basal electrodes in the array.

Handling of the TEMPO+ behind-the-ear speech processor by MED-EL cochlear implant users

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 110-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilona Anderson ◽  
Marcus Schmidt ◽  
Thomas Buchreiter ◽  
Kristin Bisanar
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Processor

scholarly journals Launching of a cochlear implant program at the Cracow Otolaryngology Clinic

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Maciej Wiatr ◽  
Kazimierz Niemczyk ◽  
Jacek Składzień ◽  
Agnieszka Wiatr
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Inner Ear ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Acoustic Trauma ◽  
Sensory Cells ◽  
Hearing Disorders ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
External Part ◽  
The Right ◽  
Specialist Center

Introduction: It is estimated that hearing impediment affects approximately 12% of the population. Some forms of hearing disorders can be successfully treated conservatively, while in others surgery plays a key role. Often, therapeutic methods are exhausted and the patient faces the decision about the need for acoustic organ prosthesis. Depending on the causes of anomalies, apparatus for air conduction, bone conduction or cochlear implants are used. A cochlear implant replaces the damaged sensory cells of the inner ear. It constitutes an electronic prosthesis of the acoustic organ, composed of two parts. The internal part (implanted in the inner ear) consists of an implant and electrodes, which conduct electrical signals to the cochlea. The external part consists of a microphone, a speech processor, and a transmitter. Care report: A 70-year-old patient with deep hearing loss in the right ear and deafness of the left ear. During the interview, the patient denied mechanical injuries of the head and neck, acoustic trauma, inflammation or otorrhea. Based on the conducted tests, qualification otolaryngology, audiology, and otoneurology, radiology, surdologopedy and psychology were performed for cochlear implant insertion. The patient was qualified for cochlear implantation in the left ear under general anesthesia. The surgical team was composed of dr hab. Maciej Wiatr, prof. dr hab. Kazimierz Niemczyk, prof. dr hab. Jacek Składzień, MD Agnieszka Wiatr with anesthetic monitoring under the supervision of MD Renata Witkowska. The patient was discharged home on day 7 after surgery in good general and local condition. Simultaneous rehabilitation was started at the Center for Daily Rehabilitation of Hearing and Speech at the Specialist Center of Diagnosis and Rehabilitation for Children and Adolescents with Hearing Disabilities of the Polish Association of the Deaf in Cracow.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document