Comparison of two cochlear implant coding strategies on speech perception

Dillon, Margaret T.; Buss, Emily; King, English R.; Deres, Ellen J.; Obarowski, Sarah N.; Anderson, Meredith L.; Adunka, Marcia C.

doi:10.1080/14670100.2016.1244033

Cited by 17 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The ability of the present cohort to use fine structure cues is encouraging; however, investigations with conventional CI recipients are split between whether (Arnoldner et al, 2007;Vermeire, Punte, & Van de Heyning, 2010) or not (Dillon et al, 2016;Muller et al, 2012) a benefit is observed for fine structure strategies when compared to envelope-only coding strategies. A benefit may not have been observed consistently in previous studies due to a mismatch between rate coding and place coding information associated with shorter electrode arrays.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…A benefit may not have been observed consistently in previous studies due to a mismatch between rate coding and place coding information associated with shorter electrode arrays. For example, Dillon et al (2016) randomized CI recipients at initial activation to listen with the fine structure processing or HDCIS coding strategy. The groups demonstrated no significant difference on speech recognition after 6 months of CI use.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Low-Frequency Pitch Perception in Cochlear Implant Recipients With Normal Hearing in the Contralateral Ear

Dillon

Buss

Rooth

et al. 2019

J Speech Lang Hear Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Three experiments were carried out to evaluate the low-frequency pitch perception of adults with unilateral hearing loss who received a cochlear implant (CI). Method: Participants were recruited from a cohort of CI users with unilateral hearing loss and normal hearing in the contralateral ear. First, low-frequency pitch perception was assessed for the 5 most apical electrodes at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after CI activation using an adaptive pitch-matching task. Participants listened with a coding strategy that presents low-frequency temporal fine structure (TFS) and compared the pitch to that of an acoustic target presented to the normal hearing ear. Next, participants listened with an envelope-only, continuous interleaved sampling strategy. Pitch perception was compared between coding strategies to assess the influence of TFS cues on lowfrequency pitch perception. Finally, participants completed a vocal pitch-matching task to corroborate the results obtained with the adaptive pitch-matching task. Results: Pitch matches roughly corresponded to electrode center frequencies (CFs) in the CI map. Adaptive pitch matches exceeded the CF for the most apical electrode, an effect that was larger for continuous interleaved sampling than TFS. Vocal pitch matches were variable but correlated with the CF of the 3 most apical electrodes. There was no evidence that pitch matches changed between the 1-and 12-month intervals. Conclusions: Relatively accurate and asymptotic pitch perception was observed at the 1-month interval, indicating either very rapid acclimatization or the provision of familiar place and rate cues. Early availability of appropriate pitch cues could have played a role in the early improvements in localization and masked speech recognition previously observed in this cohort. Supplemental Material: https://doi.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-Frequency Pitch Perception in Cochlear Implant Recipients With Normal Hearing in the Contralateral Ear

Dillon

Buss

Rooth

et al. 2019

J Speech Lang Hear Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The carrier rate is generally fixed at 1–2 kHz (Green et al 2002 ). Notable examples of CIS-based strategies are spectral peak (SPEAK) and advanced combination encoder (ACE) developed by Cochlear Corp (Melbourne, Australia) (Kiefer et al 2001 ; Skinner et al 2002 ), High-Definition Continuous Interleaved Sampling (HDCIS) from Med-El (Innsbruck, Austria) (Dillon et al 2016 ), and the HiRes strategies deployed in devices from Advanced Bionics (Valencia, CA) (Nogueira et al 2009a ). While these strategies differ in subtle ways, they all have in common that they retain the speech envelope, but discard the temporal fine structure (TFS).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Temporal Fine Structure of Background Noise Determines the Benefit of Bimodal Hearing for Recognizing Speech

Stronks

Briaire

Frijns

2020

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implant (CI) users have more difficulty understanding speech in temporally modulated noise than in steady-state (SS) noise. This is thought to be caused by the limited low-frequency information that CIs provide, as well as by the envelope coding in CIs that discards the temporal fine structure (TFS). Contralateral amplification with a hearing aid, referred to as bimodal hearing, can potentially provide CI users with TFS cues to complement the envelope cues provided by the CI signal. In this study, we investigated whether the use of a CI alone provides access to only envelope cues and whether acoustic amplification can provide additional access to TFS cues. To this end, we evaluated speech recognition in bimodal listeners, using SS noise and two amplitude-modulated noise types, namely babble noise and amplitude-modulated steady-state (AMSS) noise. We hypothesized that speech recognition in noise depends on the envelope of the noise, but not on its TFS when listening with a CI. Secondly, we hypothesized that the amount of benefit gained by the addition of a contralateral hearing aid depends on both the envelope and TFS of the noise. The two amplitude-modulated noise types decreased speech recognition more effectively than SS noise. Against expectations, however, we found that babble noise decreased speech recognition more effectively than AMSS noise in the CI-only condition. Therefore, we rejected our hypothesis that TFS is not available to CI users. In line with expectations, we found that the bimodal benefit was highest in babble noise. However, there was no significant difference between the bimodal benefit obtained in SS and AMSS noise. Our results suggest that a CI alone can provide TFS cues and that bimodal benefits in noise depend on TFS, but not on the envelope of the noise.

show abstract

“…The few RCTs that have succeeded in including more than 30 participants recruited those subjects at more than one study center and used devices from multiple manufacturers, adding to study variability [16,17]. RCTs that are limited to a monocentric study setup often contain much smaller sample sizes [18,19].…”

Section: Current Limitations In CI Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating hearing performance with cochlear implants within the same patient using daily randomization and imaging-based fitting - The ELEPHANT study

Lambriks

Hoof

Debruyne

et al. 2020

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Prospective research in the field of cochlear implants is hampered by methodological issues and small sample sizes. The ELEPHANT study presents an alternative clinical trial design with a daily randomized approach evaluating individualized tonotopical fitting of a cochlear implant (CI). Methods: A single-blinded, daily-randomized clinical trial will be implemented to evaluate a new imaging-based CI mapping strategy. A minimum of 20 participants will be included from the start of the rehabilitation process with a 1-year follow-up period. Based on a post-operative cone beam CT scan (CBCT), mapping of electrical input will be aligned to natural place-pitch arrangement in the individual cochlea. The CI's frequency allocation table will be adjusted to match the electrical stimulation of frequencies as closely as possible to corresponding acoustic locations in the cochlea. A randomization scheme will be implemented whereby the participant, blinded to the intervention allocation, crosses over between the experimental and standard fitting program on a daily basis, and thus effectively acts as his own control, followed by a period of free choice between both maps to incorporate patient preference. With this new approach the occurrence of a first-order carryover effect and a limited sample size is addressed. Discussion: The experimental fitting strategy is thought to give rise to a steeper learning curve, result in better performance in challenging listening situations, improve sound quality, better complement residual acoustic hearing in the contralateral ear and be preferred by recipients of a CI. Concurrently, the suitability of the novel trial design will be considered in investigating these hypotheses.

show abstract

Comparison of two cochlear implant coding strategies on speech perception

Cited by 17 publications

References 27 publications

Low-Frequency Pitch Perception in Cochlear Implant Recipients With Normal Hearing in the Contralateral Ear

Low-Frequency Pitch Perception in Cochlear Implant Recipients With Normal Hearing in the Contralateral Ear

The Temporal Fine Structure of Background Noise Determines the Benefit of Bimodal Hearing for Recognizing Speech

Evaluating hearing performance with cochlear implants within the same patient using daily randomization and imaging-based fitting - The ELEPHANT study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About