Speech Recognition in Background Noise of Cochlear Implant Patients

OBJECTIVES: The performances of adult patients using Spectral peak (Nucleus 22 or Nucleus 24 patients) or Continuous Interleaved Sampling or Advanced Combination Encoder (Clarion patients) were evaluated in their ability to perform in quiet and in 2 levels of background noise. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-six patients were tested with the City University of New York Sentences presented at 70 dB in quiet and at signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) of +10 and +5 dB. Patients were scored on the number of words perceived correctly. RESULTS: Scores were different at each condition (P < 0.05): 88% words correct in quiet, 73% correct at an SNR of +10 dB, and 47% correct at an SNR of +5 dB. Linear regression analysis found no significant correlation between test score and age at implantation or time using the implant. A weak negative correlation was found between years of hearing loss and score. CONCLUSION: Competing noise interferes with comprehension of connected speech for most cochlear implant patients.

[1]  H Rudert,et al.  Effects of noise on speech discrimination in cochlear implant patients. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[2]  T Lenarz,et al.  Performance of the new Clarion speech processor 1.2 in quiet and in noise. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[3]  F G Zeng,et al.  Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[4]  V Hamacher,et al.  Evaluation of noise reduction systems for cochlear implant users in different acoustic environment. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[5]  Weiss Mr.  Effects of noise and noise reduction processing on the operation of the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant processor. , 1993 .

[6]  C James,et al.  Speech perception in noise with implant and hearing aid. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[7]  I. Hochmair-Desoyer,et al.  The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[8]  R L Ma,et al.  Evaluation of coding strategies under noisy environment by stimulating electrodes. , 1997, Advances in oto-rhino-laryngology.

[9]  T Lenarz,et al.  Performance in quiet and in noise with the Nucleus Spectra 22 and the Clarion CIS/CA cochlear implant devices. , 1997, Scandinavian audiology.

[10]  H J McDermott,et al.  Speech processing for multichannel cochlear implants: variations of the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor strategy. , 1994, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[11]  P M Seligman,et al.  Speech perception using a two-formant 22-electrode cochlear prosthesis in quiet and in noise. , 1987, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[12]  M R Weiss.  Effects of noise and noise reduction processing on the operation of the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant processor. , 1993, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[13]  R A Schindler.  Personal Reflections on Cochlear Implants , 1999, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[14]  S Hellman,et al.  Effects of noise and noise suppression on speech perception by cochlear implant users. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

[15]  Preliminary assessment of the Los Angeles, Vienna and Melbourne cochlear implants. , 1984, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[16]  J. Kiefer,et al.  Speech understanding in quiet and in noise with the CIS speech-coding strategy (MED EL Combi-40) compared to the MPEAK and SPEAK strategies (Nucleus). , 1997, Advances in oto-rhino-laryngology.

[17]  Q J Fu,et al.  Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  A. Gunkel,et al.  Microendoscopic transoral CO2-laser resection of an extensive nasopharyngeal and oral teratoma. , 1997, American journal of otolaryngology.