Consonant recognition as a function of the number of stimulation channels in the Hybrid short-electrode cochlear implant.

Consonant recognition was measured as a function of the number of stimulation channels for Hybrid short-electrode cochlear implant (CI) users, long-electrode CI users, and normal-hearing (NH) listeners in quiet and background noise. Short-electrode CI subjects were tested with 1-6 channels allocated to a frequency range of 1063-7938 Hz. Long-electrode CI subjects were tested with 1-6, 8, or 22 channels allocated to 188-7938 Hz, or 1-6 or 15 channels from the basal 15 electrodes allocated to 1063-7938 Hz. NH listeners were tested with simulations of each CI group/condition. Despite differences in intracochlear electrode spacing for equivalent channel conditions, all CI subject groups performed similarly at each channel condition and improved up to at least four channels in quiet and noise. All CI subject groups underperformed relative to NH subjects. These preliminary findings suggest that the limited channel benefit seen for CI users may not be due solely to increases in channel interactions as a function of electrode density. Other factors such as pre-operative patient history, location of stimulation in the base versus apex, or a limit on the number of electric channels that can be processed cognitively, may also interact with the effects of electrode contact spacing along the cochlea.

[1]  A. Faulkner,et al.  Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  W. Parkinson,et al.  Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. , 1999, The American journal of otology.

[3]  John K Niparko,et al.  Predictive models for cochlear implantation in elderly candidates. , 2005, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[4]  C. Turner,et al.  Combining acoustic and electrical hearing , 2003 .

[5]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[6]  G. Clark,et al.  Electrode Discrimination by Early‐Deafened Subjects Using the Cochlear Limited Multiple‐Electrode Cochlear Implant , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[7]  Bruce J. Gantz,et al.  Combining acoustic and electric hearing: Simulations and real‐patient results , 2000 .

[8]  C W Turner,et al.  Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  D. D. Greenwood.  A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Electrode ranking of "place pitch" and speech recognition in electrical hearing. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Patricia A. Leake,et al.  Frequency Map for the Human Cochlear Spiral Ganglion: Implications for Cochlear Implants , 2007, Journal for the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[12]  C. McMahon,et al.  Relative Importance of Monaural Sound Deprivation and Bilateral Significant Hearing Loss in Predicting Cochlear Implantation Outcomes , 2011, Ear and hearing.

[13]  René H Gifford,et al.  Implications of Minimizing Trauma During Conventional Cochlear Implantation , 2011, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

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

[15]  B. Pfingst,et al.  Spectral and temporal cues for speech recognition: Implications for auditory prostheses , 2008, Hearing Research.

[16]  Bruce J. Gantz,et al.  Changes in Pitch with a Cochlear Implant Over Time , 2007, Journal for the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[17]  R. Shannon,et al.  Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Jacob Oleson,et al.  Music Perception with Cochlear Implants and Residual Hearing , 2006, Audiology and Neurotology.

[19]  Joseph Roberson,et al.  Nucleus Freedom North American Clinical Trial , 2007, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[20]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Cochlear Implant Speech Processor Frequency Allocations May Influence Pitch Perception , 2008, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[21]  L M Collins,et al.  Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  H J McDermott,et al.  The relationship between speech perception and electrode discrimination in cochlear implantees. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Jeroen J Briaire,et al.  Spread of Excitation and Channel Interaction in Single- and Dual-Electrode Cochlear Implant Stimulation , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[24]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Auditory Training with Spectrally Shifted Speech: Implications for Cochlear Implant Patient Auditory Rehabilitation , 2005, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[25]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Effects of carrier pulse rate and stimulation site on modulation detection by subjects with cochlear implants. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  G. A. Miller,et al.  An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants , 1955 .

[27]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Combining acoustic and electrical speech processing: Iowa/Nucleus hybrid implant , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.