The Sound of a Cochlear Implant Investigated in Patients With Single-Sided Deafness and a Cochlear Implant

Peters, Jeroen P. M.; Wendrich, Anne W.; Eijl, Ruben H. M. van; Rhebergen, Koenraad S.; Versnel, Huib; Grolman, Wilko

doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000001821

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two studies recently conducted similar investigations in SSD subjects using different procedures (Dorman et al., 2017; Peters et al., 2018). Peters et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally, CIs are simulated acoustically using channel vocoders, most often with a number of sinusoidal or noise-band carriers that emulate the electrical pulse trains delivered by the implanted electrodes (Bas¸kent & Shannon, 2004;Dudley, 1939;Rosen, Faulkner, & Wilkinson, 1999). Recently, it has been reported that the sound quality of these vocoders differs from the sound of a CI, as evaluated in SSD-CI subjects (Dorman, Natale, Butts, Zeitler, & Carlson, 2017;Peters et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Searching for the Sound of a Cochlear Implant: Evaluation of Different Vocoder Parameters by Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implantation in subjects with single-sided deafness (SSD) offers a unique opportunity to directly compare the percepts evoked by a cochlear implant (CI) with those evoked acoustically. Here, nine SSD-CI users performed a forced-choice task evaluating the similarity of speech processed by their CI with speech processed by several vocoders presented to their healthy ear. In each trial, subjects heard two intervals: their CI followed by a certain vocoder in Interval 1 and their CI followed by a different vocoder in Interval 2. The vocoders differed either (i) in carrier type—(sinusoidal [SINE], bandfiltered noise [NOISE], and pulse-spreading harmonic complex) or (ii) in frequency mismatch between the analysis and synthesis frequency ranges—(no mismatch, and two frequency-mismatched conditions of 2 and 4 equivalent rectangular bandwidths [ERBs]). Subjects had to state in which of the two intervals the CI and vocoder sounds were more similar. Despite a large intersubject variability, the PSHC vocoder was judged significantly more similar to the CI than SINE or NOISE vocoders. Furthermore, the No-mismatch and 2-ERB mismatch vocoders were judged significantly more similar to the CI than the 4-ERB mismatch vocoder. The mismatch data were also interpreted by comparing spiral ganglion characteristic frequencies with electrode contact positions determined from postoperative computed tomography scans. Only one subject demonstrated a pattern of preference consistent with adaptation to the CI sound processor frequency-to-electrode allocation table and two subjects showed possible partial adaptation. Those subjects with adaptation patterns presented overall small and consistent frequency mismatches across their electrode arrays.

show abstract

“…Two studies recently conducted similar investigations in SSD subjects using different procedures (Dorman et al., 2017; Peters et al., 2018). Peters et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Searching for the Sound of a Cochlear Implant: Evaluation of Different Vocoder Parameters by Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the previously described experiment with speakers of Polish, mean similarity scores for noise and sine vocoders were between 2.0 and 3.0. Peters et al (2018) studied 10 SSD-CI patients fit with Cochlear Corporation CIs (type 422 with CP 910 or 920 processors) using noise and sine vocoders as input to the NH ear.Two of the three vocoders differed in configuration from those used in Dorman et al (2017). On a 1 to 10 scale, the average score for similarity between the vocoders and the CI was 6.8 for speech stimuli and 6.3 for music stimuli.…”

Section: Vocoders As An Acoustic Model Of the Sound Quality Of A CImentioning

confidence: 99%

Approximations to the Voice of a Cochlear Implant: Explorations With Single-Sided Deaf Listeners

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fourteen single-sided deaf listeners fit with an MED-EL cochlear implant (CI) judged the similarity of clean signals presented to their CI and modified signals presented to their normal-hearing ear. The signals to the normal-hearing ear were created by (a) filtering, (b) spectral smearing, (c) changing overall fundamental frequency (F0), (d) F0 contour flattening, (e) changing formant frequencies, (f) altering resonances and ring times to create a metallic sound quality, (g) using a noise vocoder, or (h) using a sine vocoder. The operations could be used singly or in any combination. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 was a complete match to the sound of the CI, the mean match score was 8.8. Over half of the matches were 9.0 or higher. The most common alterations to a clean signal were band-pass or low-pass filtering, spectral peak smearing, and F0 contour flattening. On average, 3.4 operations were used to create a match. Upshifts in formant frequencies were implemented most often for electrode insertion angles less than approximately 500°. A relatively small set of operations can produce signals that approximate the sound of the MED-EL CI. There are large individual differences in the combination of operations needed. The sound files in Supplemental Material approximate the sound of the MED-EL CI for patients fit with 28-mm electrode arrays.

show abstract

“…CI performance appears to have reached a plateau in the last 30 years and despite an increase in scientific publications [2], a substantial number of challenges await future research. For example, a CI user's individual gradient of improvement is still hard to predict [3], disappointing outcomes remain hard to explain [4], speech perception in difficult listening situations remains extremely challenging for most CI users [5], and the quality of sound generated by CI stimulation is often considered unnatural and robotic despite decades of CI development [4,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

The Sound of a Cochlear Implant Investigated in Patients With Single-Sided Deafness and a Cochlear Implant

Abstract: We obtained a fairly good impression of what a CI can sound like for SSD patients. This may help to better inform and educate patients and family members about the sound of a CI.

Cited by 15 publications

References 27 publications

Searching for the Sound of a Cochlear Implant: Evaluation of Different Vocoder Parameters by Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness

Searching for the Sound of a Cochlear Implant: Evaluation of Different Vocoder Parameters by Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness

Approximations to the Voice of a Cochlear Implant: Explorations With Single-Sided Deaf Listeners

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