scholarly journals The Effect of Reducing the Number of Electrodes on Spatial Hearing Tasks for Bilateral Cochlear Implant Recipients

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (02) ◽  
pp. 110-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Perreau ◽  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Shelley A. Witt
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Spatial Hearing ◽  
Electrode Arrays ◽  
Maximum Performance ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Spectral Bands ◽  
Maximal Performance ◽  
Bilateral Cochlear Implant

Background: Many studies have documented the effect of reducing spectral information for speech perception in listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment. While it is understood that more spectral bands are needed for unilateral cochlear implant listeners to perform well on more challenging listening tasks such as speech perception in noise, it is unclear how reducing the number of spectral bands or electrodes in cochlear implants influences the ability to localize sound or understand speech with spatially separate noise sources. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to measure the effect of reducing the number of electrodes for patients with bilateral cochlear implants on spatial hearing tasks. Research Design: Performance on spatial hearing tasks was examined as the number of bilateral electrodes in the speech processor was deactivated equally across ears and the full frequency spectrum was reallocated to a reduced number of active electrodes. Program parameters (i.e., pulse width, stimulation rate) were held constant among the programs and set identically between the right and left cochlear implants so that only the number of electrodes varied. Study Sample: Nine subjects had used bilateral Nucleus or Advanced Bionics cochlear implants for at least 12 mo prior to beginning the study. Only those subjects with full insertion of the electrode arrays with all electrodes active in both ears were eligible to participate. Data Collection and Analysis: Two test measures were utilized to evaluate the effect of reducing the number of electrodes, including a speech-perception-in-noise test with spatially separated sources and a sound source localization test. Results: Reducing the number of electrodes had different effects across individuals. Three patterns emerged: (1) no effect on localization (two of nine subjects), (2) at least two to four bilateral electrodes were required for maximal performance (five of nine subjects), and (3) performance gradually decreased across conditions as electrode number was reduced (two of nine subjects). For the test of speech perception in spatially separated noise, performance was affected as the number of electrodes was reduced for all subjects. Two categories of performance were found: (1) at least three or four bilateral electrodes were needed for maximum performance (five of seven subjects) and (2) as the number of electrodes were reduced, performance gradually decreased across conditions (two of seven subjects). Conclusion: Large individual differences exist in determining maximum performance using bilateral electrodes for localization and speech perception in noise. For some bilateral cochlear implant users, as few as three to four electrodes can be used to obtain maximal performance on localization and speech-in-noise tests. However, other listeners show a gradual decrement in performance on both tasks when the number of electrodes is reduced.

scholarly journals An Attempt to Improve Bilateral Cochlear Implants by Increasing the Distance between Electrodes and Providing Complementary Information to the Two Ears

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (01) ◽  
pp. 052-065 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Shelley A. Witt ◽  
Camille C. Dunn ◽  
Ann Perreau ◽  
Aaron J. Parkinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Bilateral Cochlear Implants ◽  
Channel Interaction ◽  
Consonant Recognition ◽  
Bilateral Cochlear Implant ◽  
Input Spectrum

Objectives: The purpose of this investigation was to determine if adult bilateral cochlear implant recipients could benefit from using a speech processing strategy in which the input spectrum was interleaved among electrodes across the two implants. Design: Two separate experiments were conducted. In both experiments, subjects were tested using a control speech processing strategy and a strategy in which the full input spectrum was filtered so that only the output of half of the filters was audible to one implant, while the output of the alternative filters was audible to the other implant. The filters were interleaved in a way that created alternate frequency “holes” between the two cochlear implants. Results: In experiment one, four subjects were tested on consonant recognition. Results indicated that one of the four subjects performed better with the interleaved strategy, one subject received a binaural advantage with the interleaved strategy that they did not receive with the control strategy, and two subjects showed no decrement in performance when using the interleaved strategy. In the second experiment, 11 subjects were tested on word recognition, sentences in noise, and localization (it should be noted that not all subjects participated in all tests). Results showed that for speech perception testing one subject achieved significantly better scores with the interleaved strategy on all tests, and seven subjects showed a significant improvement with the interleaved strategy on at least one test. Only one subject showed a decrement in performance on all speech perception tests with the interleaved strategy. Out of nine subjects, one subject preferred the sound quality of the interleaved strategy. No one performed better on localization with the interleaved strategy. Conclusion: Data from this study indicate that some adult bilateral cochlear implant recipients can benefit from using a speech processing strategy in which the input spectrum is interleaved among electrodes across the two implants. It is possible that the subjects in this study who showed a significant improvement with the interleaved strategy did so because of less channel interaction; however, this hypothesis was not directly tested.

scholarly journals Bone-anchored hearing system, contralateral routing of signals hearing aid or cochlear implant: what is best in single-sided deafness?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Till F. Jakob ◽  
Iva Speck ◽  
Ann-Kathrin Rauch ◽  
Frederike Hassepass ◽  
Manuel C. Ketterer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Sound Localisation ◽  
Therapy Option ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Objective Hearing Tests

Abstract Purpose The aim of the study was to compare long-term results after 1 year in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) who were fitted with different hearing aids. The participants tested contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing aids and bone-anchored hearing systems (BAHS). They were also informed about the possibility of a cochlear implant (CI) and chose one of the three devices. We also investigated which factors influenced the choice of device. Methods Prospective study with 89 SSD participants who were divided into three groups by choosing BAHS, CROS, or CI. All participants received test batteries with both objective hearing tests (speech perception in noise and sound localisation) and subjective questionnaires. Results 16 participants opted for BAHS-, 13 for CROS- and 30 for CI-treatment. The greater the subjective impairment caused by SSD, the more likely patients were to opt for surgical treatment (BAHS or CI). The best results in terms of speech perception in noise (especially when sound reaches the deaf ear and noise the hearing ear), sound localization, and subjective results were achieved with CI. Conclusion The best results regarding the therapy of SSD are achieved with a CI, followed by BAHS. This was evident both in objective tests and in the subjective questionnaires. Nevertheless, an individual decision is required in each case as to which SSD therapy option is best for the patient. Above all, the patient's subjective impairment and expectations should be included in the decision-making process.

scholarly journals Auditory Speech Perception Development in Relation to Patient's Age with Cochlear Implant

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (03) ◽  
pp. 206-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace Ciscare ◽  
Erika Mantello ◽  
Carla Fortunato-Queiroz ◽  
Miguel Hyppolito ◽  
Ana Reis
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Auditory Thresholds ◽  
Caregiver Education ◽  
Auditory Speech ◽  
Hearing Aid Use

Introduction A cochlear implant in adolescent patients with pre-lingual deafness is still a debatable issue. Objective The objective of this study is to analyze and compare the development of auditory speech perception in children with pre-lingual auditory impairment submitted to cochlear implant, in different age groups in the first year after implantation. Method This is a retrospective study, documentary research, in which we analyzed 78 reports of children with severe bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, unilateral cochlear implant users of both sexes. They were divided into three groups: G1, 22 infants aged less than 42 months; G2, 28 infants aged between 43 to 83 months; and G3, 28 older than 84 months. We collected medical record data to characterize the patients, auditory thresholds with cochlear implants, assessment of speech perception, and auditory skills. Results There was no statistical difference in the association of the results among groups G1, G2, and G3 with sex, caregiver education level, city of residence, and speech perception level. There was a moderate correlation between age and hearing aid use time, age and cochlear implants use time. There was a strong correlation between age and the age cochlear implants was performed, hearing aid use time and age CI was performed. Conclusion There was no statistical difference in the speech perception in relation to the patient's age when cochlear implant was performed. There were statistically significant differences for the variables of auditory deprivation time between G3 - G1 and G2 - G1 and hearing aid use time between G3 - G2 and G3 - G1.

scholarly journals Developmental Links Between Speech Perception in Noise, Singing, and Cortical Processing of Music in Children with Cochlear Implants

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ritva Torppa ◽  
Andrew Faulkner ◽  
Teija Kujala ◽  
Minna Huotilainen ◽  
Jari Lipsanen
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Musical Instrument ◽  
Noise Performance ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Brain Responses ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Musical Sounds ◽  
Auditory Skills

The perception of speech in noise is challenging for children with cochlear implants (CIs). Singing and musical instrument playing have been associated with improved auditory skills in normal-hearing (NH) children. Therefore, we assessed how children with CIs who sing informally develop in the perception of speech in noise compared to those who do not. We also sought evidence of links of speech perception in noise with MMN and P3a brain responses to musical sounds and studied effects of age and changes over a 14–17 month time period in the speech-in-noise performance of children with CIs. Compared to the NH group, the entire CI group was less tolerant of noise in speech perception, but both groups improved similarly. The CI singing group showed better speech-in-noise perception than the CI non-singing group. The perception of speech in noise in children with CIs was associated with the amplitude of MMN to a change of sound from piano to cymbal, and in the CI singing group only, with earlier P3a for changes in timbre. While our results cannot address causality, they suggest that singing and musical instrument playing may have a potential to enhance the perception of speech in noise in children with CIs.

scholarly journals Neural Modulation Transmission Is a Marker for Speech Perception in Noise in Cochlear Implant Users

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 591-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Gransier ◽  
Robert Luke ◽  
Astrid van Wieringen ◽  
Jan Wouters
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Neural Modulation

scholarly journals Mismatch Negativity in Children with Cochlear Implant

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (03) ◽  
pp. e292-e298
Author(s):  
Natalia Martinez Fernandes ◽  
Daniela Gil ◽  
Marisa Frasson de Azevedo
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Family Involvement ◽  
Mismatch Negativity ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Hearing Children

Introduction The mismatch negativity (MMN) is a negative long-latency auditory potential elicited by any discriminable change in a repetitive aspect of auditory stimulation. This evoked potential can provide cortical information about the sound processing, including in children who use cochlear implants. Objective To identify MMN characteristics regarding latency, amplitude, and wave area in cochlear implanted children and to identify associations among language development, speech perception and family involvement. Methods This is a descriptive, observational, cross-sectional study, which compared two groups: study group—children with cochlear implant, and control group—hearing children. The children were submitted to MMN evaluation with non-verbal tone burst stimulus, differing in frequency in sound field at 70 dBHL, with SmartEP equipment (Intelligent Hearing Systems, Miami, FL, USA). Speech perception and language development questionnaires were also applied, and the family participation in the rehabilitation process was classified. Results The occurrence of MMN was 73.3% for the control group and 53.3% for the study group. Values of latency, amplitude and area of MMN of children using cochlear implants were similar to those of hearing children, and did not differ between groups. The occurrence of MMN was not correlated to the variables of hearing, language and family categories. Conclusion Children with cochlear implants showed similar MMN responses to those of the children in the control group, with mean latency, amplitude and area of 208.9 ms (±12.8), -2.37 μV (±0.38) and 86.5 μVms (±23.4), respectively. There was no correlation between the presence of MMN and children's performance in the auditory and language development tests or family involvement during rehabilitation.

Speech Perception with a Single-Channel Cochlear Implant

1990 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arlene Earley Carney ◽  
Marjorie Kienle ◽  
Richard T. Miyamoto
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Performance Level ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Overall Performance

Suprasegmental and segmental speech perception tasks were administered to 8 patients with single-channel cochlear implants. Suprasegmental tasks included the recognition of syllable number, syllabic stress, and intonation. Segmental tasks included the recognition of vowels and consonants in three modalities: visual only, implant only, and visual + implant. Results were compared to those obtained from artificially deafened adults using a single-channel vibrotactile device (Carney, 1988; Carney & Beachler, 1986). The patterns of responses for both suprasegmental and segmental tasks were highly similar for both groups of subjects, despite differences between the characteristics of the subject samples. These results suggest that single-channel sensory devices, whether they be cochlear implants or vibrotactile aids, produce similar patterns of speech perception errors, even when differences are observed in overall performance level.

scholarly journals Bilateral and Unilateral Cochlear Implant Users Compared on Speech Perception in Noise

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 296-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille C. Dunn ◽  
William Noble ◽  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Monika Kordus ◽  
Bruce J. Gantz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document