Speech Recognition Experience with Multichannel Cochlear Implants

1985 ◽  
Vol 93 (5) ◽  
pp. 639-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Parkin ◽  
Donald K. Eddington ◽  
Jeffrey L. Orth ◽  
Derald E. Brackmann
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
University Of Utah ◽  
Sound Coding ◽  
Coding Strategies ◽  
The University ◽  
Sound Processor

Four patients received multichannel intracochlear implants before 1978 as part of the University of Utah program. By 1983, sound coding strategies and electronic miniaturization were developed to allow production and use of a portable sound processor/cochlear stimulator unit. Approval for expanded clinical trials has allowed Implantation of five additional patients by August 1984. Data on the earlier patients demonstrate stability of electrode thresholds and impedance, low risk of the percutaneous pedestal, and the development of speech recognition scores of greater than 60% with electrical stimulation alone and greater than 90% with electrical stimulation combined with lipreading. Data on recent recipients indicate early electrode threshold stability, lower thresholds for apical electrodes, possibility of replacing single-channel with multichannel units, and low morbidity of the implantation. Return to function in a verbally communicating environment has been achieved by one earlier patient.

scholarly journals Comparison of sound perception using CIS and ACE sound coding strategies in cochlear implants

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 8-12
Author(s):  
Oleg V. Kolokolov ◽  
Aleksandr O. Kuznetsov ◽  
Anton S. Machalov ◽  
Alla A. Grigoreva
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Sound Perception ◽  
Sound Coding ◽  
National Medical ◽  
Coding Strategies ◽  
Digital Hearing Aid

Objectives to study the effect of ACE and CIS sound coding strategies on sound perception in patients with the cochlear implants system produced by Cochlear Limited. Material and methods. The study included 50 patients taking the rehabilitation course in the Astrakhan branch of the National Medical Research Center for Otorhinolaryngology of the Federal Medico-Biological Agency over the past 5 years (from 2014 to 2019). The group of subjects included children over 7 years old and adults, whose success in rehabilitation made it possible to perform a full range of tests. The patients underwent tonal threshold audiometry and speech audiometry in a free sound field; the results obtained were registered in special MS Excel tables and further analysed using statistical methods. Results. There were no statistically significant differences in hearing thresholds on tonal audiometry when using the coding strategies ACE and CIS, however, differences in speech perception were observed on average by 4.2%. The patients experienced in using hearing aids reported improved speech recognition, with scores varying within 5%. Conclusion. Using a higher-resolution coding strategy can significantly improve speech recognition, while lower-resolution coding is beneficial for patients with digital hearing aid experience.

Building a Cochlear Implant Practice: Five Lessons Learned

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-21
Author(s):  
Anne M. Lobdell ◽  
Joseph E. Dansie ◽  
Sarah Hargus Ferguson
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Clinical Aspects ◽  
University Of Utah ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Past ◽  
Speech Science ◽  
The University ◽  
First Time

Cochlear implants are becoming available to an increasing proportion of the deaf and hard-of-hearing population. As interest in and success with cochlear implants has grown, more and more private practice clinics are incorporating them into their scopes of practice. Over the past 2 years, the first 2 authors of this article have been heavily involved in developing cochlear implant programs in separate otolaryngology private practices. A recent conversation about this process revealed several common experiences and lessons learned. During these same 2 years, the third author began teaching the cochlear implant course at the University of Utah. Although her audiology and speech science background gave her extensive knowledge of the science behind cochlear implants, she had no clinical experience with them. The first author took this course the first time the third author taught it, and the experiences and insights she shared with the third author during and since the course have been an important component of the third author’s personal education in the clinical aspects of cochlear implants. In this article, the first 2 authors share 5 things we wish we had known when first beginning their work with cochlear implants.

Speech Performance by Patients with Multichannel Cochlear Implants

1986 ◽  
Vol 95 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Parkin ◽  
M. Korine Dankowski
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Word List ◽  
Open Set ◽  
Lip Reading ◽  
Speech Performance ◽  
Improved Performance ◽  
Processor Unit ◽  
Sound Processor ◽  
Channel Unit

Thirteen patients were implanted with multichannel cochlear implants between April 1,1984 and February 25,1985. The patients are fitted with the sound processor unit 4 to 6 weeks postsurgery. One patient had a single-channel unit replaced with a multichannel implant. She reported improved sound quality. All patients use their implants daily and all patients would undergo implantation again (based on their current performance). Evidence exists that continued use leads to improved performance. Patient S.S. progressed from auditory-only scores of 12% and 24% to 100% and 100% in 4 months. The average open set auditory-only performance of six patients in the first 4 months on a spondee word list was 22%. The average of eight patients—more than 4 months post sound processor—is 44%, indicating improvement with use. Patients perform better when combining auditory input with visual input than they do with lip reading alone. The multichannel implant is well tolerated and accepted, and results in speech performance improvement.

Artificial Vision for the Blind by Electrical Stimulation of the Visual Cortex

Neurosurgery ◽  
1979 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 521-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
William H. Dobelle ◽  
William H. Dobelle ◽  
Donald O. Quest ◽  
Joao L. Antunes ◽  
Theodore S. Roberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Visual Cortex ◽  
Artificial Vision ◽  
Columbia University ◽  
Collaborative Effort ◽  
University Of Utah ◽  
Television Camera ◽  
The Status ◽  
The University ◽  
Stimulation Of

Abstract Artificial vision for the blind may be feasible by interfacing a television camera with electronics stimulating the visual cortex. The status of a major collaborative effort involving the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, the University of Utah, and the University of Western Ontario is reviewed. Results have been very encouraging, although much work remains to be done.

Audiological Management and Performance of Adult Cochlear-Implant Patients

1992 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 117-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Mary W. Lowder
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
University Of Iowa ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Time Commitment ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
And Performance ◽  
The University

We review the signal-processing strategies of three of the most common cochlear implants in use today, the single-channel House, the multichannel Nucleus, and the Ineraid devices. The results of 65 postlinguistically-deafened patients tested at The University of Iowa are reviewed. The tests include everyday sound, accent, word and sentence recognition, as well as noise/voice differentiation. For all tests, patients with the Nucleus and Ineraid cochlear implants outperformed those with the House implant. In general, selection criteria should focus on comparing the performance of Patients who have already received an implant. Prelinguistically-deafened adults are typically not good cochlear-impact candidates. Cochlear-implant teams should be aware of the enormous time commitment for testing and rehabilitation of these patients, and be prepared to handle frequent implant breakdowns. Nevertheless, cochlear-implant patients have been helped significantly be these devices.

Prognosticating Speech Performance in Multichannel Cochlear Implant Patients

1989 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 314-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Parkin ◽  
Bruce E. Stewart ◽  
Korine Dankowski ◽  
Leonard J. Haas
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Reading Ability ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Ct Scanning ◽  
University Of Utah ◽  
Lip Reading ◽  
Speech Performance ◽  
The University

Twenty patients received multichannel cochlear implants between April 1984 and May 1986 at the University of Utah Medical Center. All patients have been followed for at least 1 year postimplant. Preimplant screening included audiometric testing, electronystagmogram (ENG), promontory stimulation, computed tomography (CT) scanning, and psychological evaluation. Based on postimplant audio-only CID sentence discrimination scores, these patients were divided into three groups: good (CID > 79%), Intermediate (CID, 21% to 79%), and poor (CID < 21%). Preimplant factors that correlated with CID scores were hearing loss duration, previous use of hearing aids, lip-reading ability, tinnitus, positive ENG calorics, preimplant pure-tone average, promontory stimulation threshold, and understanding of the project. Only previous hearing aid usage approached statistical significance ( p = 0.05). A larger patient sample is needed to verify these results.

Selecting the Optimal FM System for Children With Cochlear Implants

2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-24
Author(s):  
Erin C. Schafer
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
System Input ◽  
Optimal Type

Children who use cochlear implants experience significant difficulty hearing speech in the presence of background noise, such as in the classroom. To address these difficulties, audiologists often recommend frequency-modulated (FM) systems for children with cochlear implants. The purpose of this article is to examine current empirical research in the area of FM systems and cochlear implants. Discussion topics will include selecting the optimal type of FM receiver, benefits of binaural FM-system input, importance of DAI receiver-gain settings, and effects of speech-processor programming on speech recognition. FM systems significantly improve the signal-to-noise ratio at the child's ear through the use of three types of FM receivers: mounted speakers, desktop speakers, or direct-audio input (DAI). This discussion will aid audiologists in making evidence-based recommendations for children using cochlear implants and FM systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document