Speech processing strategy preferences among 55 European CLARION cochlear implant users

Stollwerck, L; Goodrum-Clarke, Karen; Lynch, C.; Armstrong-Bednall, G.; Nunn, Terry; Markoff, Lori; Mens, L.H.M.; McAnallen, Cecilia; Wei, Jianing; Boyle, Patrick; George, C; Zilberman, Yitzhak

doi:10.1080/010503901300007001

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This difference was statistically significant. This study found that a smaller percentage of subjects preferred SAS (16%) when compared with the percentages reported by Osberger et al Our finding that subjects tended to prefer the strategy that yielded the best speech perception scores is in agreement with the findings of others (6,14,15). It is important to look at patient preference in a study such as this because in most clinical settings, usefulness of a particular strategy is determined by the patient and is based primarily upon subjective preference.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…A few within-subject studies have been performed to compare subjects' speech perception skills when using strategies available with the Clarion (Advanced Bionics Corporation, Sylmar, California) device (4,5,14,15). In all four studies, subjects were provided with both strategies, and the amount of time subjects used each strategy was not strictly controlled.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although Osberger and Fisher (5) noticed some speech perception differences between Continuous Interleaved Sampling (CIS) and Simultaneous Analog Stimulation (SAS) users 3 months postactivation, such differences were not present when subjects were tested at a 6-month interval (6). Stollwerk et al (15) reported that subjects performed better when using their preferred strategy, which is not surprising because subjects likely had most experience when using the preferred strategy. Because these studies did not control the amount of time subjects used each strategy, the relationship between preference for a strategy and performance with that strategy is unclear.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Continuous Interleaved Sampling and Simultaneous Analog Stimulation Speech Processing Strategies in Newly Implanted Adults with a Clarion 1.2 Cochlear Implant

Zwolan

Kileny

Smith

et al. 2005

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study demonstrates that important learning occurs during the first several weeks of cochlear implant use, making it difficult to adequately compare performance with different speech processing strategies. However, the finding that patients often prefer the strategy they understand speech the best with supports the clinical practice of letting adult patients select their preferred strategy without formally evaluating speech perception with each available strategy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Continuous Interleaved Sampling and Simultaneous Analog Stimulation Speech Processing Strategies in Newly Implanted Adults with a Clarion 1.2 Cochlear Implant

Zwolan

Kileny

Smith

et al. 2005

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All but three used the older-generation Advanced Bionics Clarion C1.x cochlear implant systems. The sound-coding strategies used for the 22 participants with older systems were continuous interleaved sampling (Wilson et al 1991) and simultaneous analogue stimulation (Eddington 1983;Stollwerck et al 2001). For the other three participants, who used CII and HiRes90k implants systems, HiRes (High Resolution) sound coding was used (Koch et al 2004).…”

Section: Experiments 2: Application Of Starr To a Group Of CI Usersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Starr

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels seems practical to administer and is reasonably sensitive. For NH participants, a 2.2 dB difference in SRT is meaningful for a single list per condition and a single participant. Although learning effects were small for NH participants, it seems prudent to provide some practice sentences when testing hearing-impaired or CI participants. The very large effect of time compression for the CI group has implications for live voice testing of children, because speech rate is only poorly controlled in such testing.

show abstract

“…A recent study by Stollwerck et al (2001) compared the preference and performance of a group of 55 SAS and CIS users at 2, 6, and 12 wk after their initial stimulation session. Subjects were fitted with both CIS and SAS at their initial programming session.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Speech Processing Strategies Used in the Clarion Implant Processor

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If temporal information were the primary factor in speech recognition with cochlear implants then SAS should consistently produce higher speech recognition scores than CIS. That was not the case, however, because most CIS users performed significantly worse with the SAS strategy on all speech tests. Hence, there seems to be a trade-off between improving the temporal resolution with an increasing number of simultaneous channels and introducing distortions from electrical-field interactions. Performance for some CI users improved when the number of simultaneous channels increased to two (PPS strategy) and four (QPS strategy). The improvement with the PPS and QPS strategies must be due to the higher rates of stimulation. The above results suggest that CIS users are less likely to benefit with the SAS strategy, and they are more likely to benefit from the PPS and QPS strategies, which provide higher rates of stimulation with small probability of channel interaction.

show abstract

Speech processing strategy preferences among 55 European CLARION cochlear implant users

Cited by 9 publications

References 2 publications

Comparison of Continuous Interleaved Sampling and Simultaneous Analog Stimulation Speech Processing Strategies in Newly Implanted Adults with a Clarion 1.2 Cochlear Implant

Comparison of Continuous Interleaved Sampling and Simultaneous Analog Stimulation Speech Processing Strategies in Newly Implanted Adults with a Clarion 1.2 Cochlear Implant

Starr

Comparison of Speech Processing Strategies Used in the Clarion Implant Processor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About