Electrical stimulation rate effects on speech perception in cochlear implants

被引:28
|
作者
Arora, Komal [1 ]
Dawson, Pam [2 ]
Dowell, Richard [1 ]
Vandali, Andrew [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Melbourne, Dept Otolaryngol, Melbourne 3002, Australia
[2] HEARing Cooperat Res Ctr CRC, Melbourne, Australia
关键词
Cochlear implant; Electrical stimulation rate; Speech perception; CODING STRATEGY; SYSTEM;
D O I
10.1080/14992020902858967
中图分类号
R36 [病理学]; R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100104 ; 100213 ;
摘要
The objective of this study was to explore cochlear implant users' speech perception performance in quiet and in noise for low to moderate stimulation rates. Eight postlingually deaf adult users of the Nucleus CI24 cochlear implant (contour electrode array) using the ESPrit 3G speech processor participated in this study. Monosyllabic word recognition in quiet and sentence perception in noise was evaluated for low to moderate stimulation rates of 275, 350, 500, and 900 pulses-per-second/channel (pps/ch). All four stimulation rate programs were balanced for loudness. A repeated ABCD experimental design was employed. Take home practice was provided with each stimulation rate. Subjects also responded to a comparative questionnaire to examine their rate preference for a variety of listening situations. Results for six of the eight subjects showed no significant effect of rate for monosyllables in quiet. However, results for the sentence test in noise demonstrated improvements with 500 or 900 pps/ch stimulation rates in seven out of the eight subjects. Although there was not a close relationship between each subject's subjective preference and the rate program that provided best speech perception, most subjects indicated a preference for 500 pps/ch rate in noise.
引用
收藏
页码:561 / 567
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Speech perception and speech production skills of children with multichannel cochlear implants
    Miyamoto, RT
    Kirk, KI
    Robbins, AM
    Todd, S
    Riley, A
    ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA, 1996, 116 (02) : 240 - 243
  • [22] Understanding the effect of noise on electrical stimulation sequences in cochlear implants and its impact on speech intelligibility
    Qazi, Obaid Ur Rehman
    van Dijk, Bas
    Moonen, Marc
    Wouters, Jan
    HEARING RESEARCH, 2013, 299 : 79 - 87
  • [23] Speech Perception With Combined Electric-Acoustic Stimulation and Bilateral Cochlear Implants in a Multisource Noise Field
    Rader, Tobias
    Fastl, Hugo
    Baumann, Uwe
    EAR AND HEARING, 2013, 34 (03): : 324 - 332
  • [24] Effect of exceeding compliance voltage on speech perception in cochlear implants
    Saoji, Aniket A.
    Adkins, Weston J.
    Olund, Amy P.
    Nelson-Bakkum, Erin R.
    Koka, Kanthaiah
    HEARING RESEARCH, 2021, 400
  • [25] The effect of increased channel interaction on speech perception with cochlear implants
    Tobias Goehring
    Alan W. Archer-Boyd
    Julie G. Arenberg
    Robert P. Carlyon
    Scientific Reports, 11
  • [26] Prefrontal cortex supports speech perception in listeners with cochlear implants
    Sherafati, Arefeh
    Dwyer, Noel
    Bajracharya, Aahana
    Hassanpour, Mahlega Samira
    Eggebrecht, Adam T.
    Firszt, Jill B.
    Culver, Joseph P.
    Peelle, Jonathan E.
    Griffiths, Timothy D.
    ELIFE, 2022, 11
  • [27] The effect of increased channel interaction on speech perception with cochlear implants
    Goehring, Tobias
    Archer-Boyd, Alan W.
    Arenberg, Julie G.
    Carlyon, Robert P.
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2021, 11 (01)
  • [28] Speech perception by prelingually deaf children using cochlear implants
    Tyler, RS
    FryaufBertschy, H
    Kelsay, DMR
    Gantz, BJ
    Woodworth, GP
    Parkinson, A
    OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, 1997, 117 (03) : 180 - 187
  • [29] Frequency-to-electrode allocation and speech perception with cochlear implants
    McKay, CM
    Henshall, KR
    JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 2002, 111 (02): : 1036 - 1044
  • [30] Variation in speech perception scores among children with cochlear implants
    Sarant, JZ
    Blamey, PJ
    Dowell, RC
    Clark, GM
    Gibson, WPR
    EAR AND HEARING, 2001, 22 (01): : 18 - 28