Effect of increased IIDR in the nucleus freedom cochlear implant system.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the increased instantaneous input dynamic range (IIDR) in the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant (CI) system on recipients' ability to perceive soft speech and speech in noise. Ten adult Freedom CI recipients participated. Two maps differing in IIDR were placed on each subject's processor at initial activation. The IIDR was set to 30 dB for one map and 40 dB for the other. Subjects used both maps for at least one month prior to speech perception testing. Results revealed significantly higher scores for words (50 dB SPL), for sentences in background babble (65 dB SPL), and significantly lower sound field threshold levels with the 40 compared to the 30 dB IIDR map. Ceiling effects may have contributed to non-significant findings for sentences in quiet (50 dB SPL). The Freedom's increased IIDR allows better perception of soft speech and speech in noise.

[1]  Colette M McKay,et al.  Benefits of syllabic input compression for users of cochlear implants. , 2002, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[2]  M W Skinner,et al.  Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant. , 1999, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[3]  A. Boothroyd,et al.  Voice Fundamental Frequency as an Auditory Supplement to the Speechreading of Sentences , 1988, Ear and hearing.

[4]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. , 1962, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[5]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  Sound Field Audiometry: Recommended Stimuli and Procedures , 1984, Ear and hearing.

[6]  Peter J Blamey,et al.  Adaptive Dynamic Range Optimization for Cochlear Implants: A Preliminary Study , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[7]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  M W Skinner,et al.  Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the multipeak (MPEAK) and spectral peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies II. Consonants. , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[9]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Kerrie Plant,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of Higher Stimulation Rates in the Nucleus Research Platform 8 System , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[11]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Simultaneous Analog Stimulation (SAS)–Continuous Interleaved Sampler (CIS) Pilot Comparison Study in Europe , 1999, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[12]  Gail S Donaldson,et al.  Effects of Presentation Level on Phoneme and Sentence Recognition in Quiet by Cochlear Implant Listeners , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[13]  M. D. Wang,et al.  Consonant confusions in noise: a study of perceptual features. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Colleen Psarros,et al.  Speech Recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS Speech Coding Strategies in Newly Implanted Adults , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[15]  M. Skinner,et al.  Performance of postlinguistically deaf adults with the Wearable Speech Processor (WSP III) and Mini Speech Processor (MSP) of the Nucleus Multi-Electrode Cochlear Implant. , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[16]  Wolfgang Gaggl,et al.  Recognition of Speech Presented at Soft to Loud Levels by Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients of Three Cochlear Implant Systems , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[17]  William M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1991, Nature.

[18]  J. Jerger,et al.  Preferred Method For Clinical Determination Of Pure-Tone Thresholds , 1959 .

[19]  P Seligman,et al.  Architecture of the Spectra 22 speech processor. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[20]  M. Skinner,et al.  Evaluation of equivalency in two recordings of monosyllabic words. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[21]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Speech recognition with the advanced combination encoder and transient emphasis spectral maxima strategies in nucleus 24 recipients. , 2005, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[22]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Nucleus® 24 Advanced Encoder Conversion Study: Performance versus Preference , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[23]  Chris J James,et al.  An Investigation of Input Level Range for the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System: Speech Perception Performance, Program Preference, and Loudness Comfort Ratings , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[24]  M Pelizzone,et al.  Effects of the Acoustical Dynamic Range on Speech Recognition with Cochlear Implants:Efectos en el rango dinámico del reconocimiento del habla con implantes cocleares , 2001, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[25]  M W Skinner,et al.  Identification of Speech by Cochlear Implant Recipients with the Multipeak (MPEAK) and Spectral Peak (SPEAK) Speech Coding Strategies I. Vowels , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[26]  Margaret W. Skinner,et al.  Comparison of benefit from vibrotactile aid and cochlear implant for postlinguistically deaf adults , 1988, The Laryngoscope.