Effect of stimulation rate on speech perception in adult users of the Med-El CIS speech processing strategy Efectos de la tasa de estimulación en la percepción del lenguaje en usuarios adultos de la estrategia de procesamiento Med-El CIS

The primary aim of the study was to determine the effect of altering channel stimulation rate on the performance of adult cochlear implant users. Six adult users of the Med-El CIS processing strategy underwent tests of categorical identification of synthetic speech, tests of sentence recognition and tests of consonant recognition in three listening conditions: high channel stimulation rate (ranging from 1500 to 2020 pps/ch), a medium rate (800 pps/ch) and a low rate (400 pps/ch). Number of channels was held constant across rate conditions. With the categorical identification task, performance varied by acoustic cue type but did not vary with rate. With the consonant recognition task performance varied by phonological feature, but there was also no significant effect of rate. However, two subjects showed markedly reduced sentence scores at lower rates. Results suggests that higher stimulation rates with the CIS strategy may be beneficial to speech perception in some cases.

[1]  M. Dorman,et al.  The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  A. Thornton,et al.  Confidence levels for differences between speech-discrimination scores. A research note. , 1980, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[3]  Measurement of the Temporal-Modulation Transfer Function for a Single Listener with Cochlear Hearing Loss and Left-Hemisphere Damage , 2000, British journal of audiology.

[4]  G. Clark,et al.  Electrode Discrimination and Speech Perception in Young Children Using Cochlear Implants , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[5]  R. Shannon,et al.  Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  P. Iverson Evaluating the function of phonetic perceptual phenomena within speech recognition: an examination of the perception of /d/-/t/ by adult cochlear implant users. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  K. Plant,et al.  Speech Perception as a Function of Electrical Stimulation Rate: Using the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[8]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

[9]  R. Shannon Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  M. Dorman,et al.  Vowel and Consonant Recognition with the Aid of a Multichannel Cochlear Implant , 1991, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[11]  N Marangos,et al.  COCHLEAR IMPLANTS , 1976, The Lancet.

[12]  P C Loizou,et al.  Minimum spectral contrast needed for vowel identification by normal hearing and cochlear implant listeners. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Q J Fu,et al.  Effect of acoustic dynamic range on phoneme recognition in quiet and noise by cochlear implant users. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  J Bamford,et al.  The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. , 1979, British journal of audiology.

[15]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  R V Shannon,et al.  Phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users as a function of signal-to-noise ratio and nonlinear amplitude mapping. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  P C Loizou,et al.  On the number of channels needed to understand speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  D T Lawson,et al.  Temporal representations with cochlear implants. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[19]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Word Recognition by Children Listening to Speech Processed into a Small Number of Channels: Data from Normal-Hearing Children and Children with Cochlear Implants , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[20]  M. Dorman,et al.  Relative spectral change and formant transitions as cues to labial and alveolar place of articulation. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Temporal cues for consonant recognition: training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  J. T Rubinstein,et al.  Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation , 1999, Hearing Research.

[23]  G S Donaldson,et al.  Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  W Baumgartner,et al.  Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[25]  M F Dorman,et al.  The Identification of Consonants and Vowels by Cochlear Implant Patients Using a 6‐Channel Continuous Interleaved Sampling Processor and by Normal‐Hearing Subjects Using Simulations of Processors with Two to Nine Channels , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[26]  G M Clark,et al.  The perception of temporal modulations by cochlear implant patients. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  D B Pisoni,et al.  Cognitive Factors and Cochlear Implants: Some Thoughts on Perception, Learning, and Memory in Speech Perception , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[28]  M F Dorman,et al.  Acoustic cues for consonant identification by patients who use the Ineraid cochlear implant. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  M F Dorman,et al.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[30]  The effect of frequency allocation on phoneme recognition with the nucleus 22 cochlear implant. , 1999, The American journal of otology.