The Effect of Front-End Processing on Cochlear Implant Performance of Children

Objective: Previous research shows that children using cochlear implants experience significant difficulty with speech perception in noisy listening situations. There are several types of input signal processing available for the cochlear implant sound processor; however, there is a paucity of research to support this technology for children. The primary objective of this study was to examine the potential benefits of 2 types of input signal processing, adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO) as compared with autosensitivity (ASC) plus ADRO for children using Cochlear Corporation implants. Research Design: Cross-sectional repeated-measures design. Setting: Outpatient nonprofit foundation providing audiology services and auditory-verbal therapy. Patients: Eleven children, aged 4 years 4 months to 12 years, with unilateral or bilateral Cochlear Limited implants. All children used their cochlear implant(s) for at least 1 year, had no additional disabilities, were enrolled in preschool or elementary school, and had age-appropriate receptive and expressive language. Intervention: All children used Cochlear Limited cochlear implants with either the Nucleus Freedom or Nucleus 5 cochlear implant sound processor. Performance was assessed while these children used ADRO-only input processing and ASC+ADRO input processing. Main Outcome Measures: Speech perception of PBK-50 monosyllabic words in quiet and BKB-SIN sentences in noise was measured for each child. In the noise conditions, children were using the ADRO-only or ASC+ADRO input signal processing strategies. The data in quiet were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and the conditions in noise were compared using a 1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results: All children demonstrated word recognition in quiet at or above 90% correct. In noise, sentence-perception performance in the ASC+ADRO condition was significantly better than that in the ADRO-alone condition. Conclusion: The results of the study suggest substantial benefit from combining 2 types of input signal processing, ASC and ADRO, for children with unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants. Specifically, signal processing to adjust the sensitivity of the sound processor microphone automatically has substantial positive effects on speech-perception thresholds in noise.

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

[2]  A. Geers,et al.  Mode of communication and classroom placement impact on speech intelligibility. , 2004, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[3]  A E Vandali,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of Expanded Input Dynamic Range in Nucleus Cochlear Implants , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[4]  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.

[5]  J. Niparko,et al.  Speech Recognition at 1-Year Follow-Up in the Childhood Development after Cochlear Implantation Study: Methods and Preliminary Findings , 2006, Audiology and Neurotology.

[6]  W F Rintelmann,et al.  Articulation functions and test-retest performance of normal-hearing children on three speech discrimination tests: WIPI, PBK-50, and NV Auditory Test No. 6. , 1976, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[7]  Astrid van Wieringen,et al.  Speech Understanding in Background Noise with the Two-Microphone Adaptive Beamformer BEAM™ in the Nucleus Freedom™ Cochlear Implant System , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[8]  Susan Scollie,et al.  The Effect of Instantaneous Input Dynamic Range Setting on the Speech Perception of Children with the Nucleus 24 Implant , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[9]  Jace Wolfe,et al.  Evaluation of speech recognition in noise with cochlear implants and dynamic FM. , 2009, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[10]  T. Ching,et al.  Directional effects on infants and young children in real life: implications for amplification. , 2009, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[11]  M. Dorman,et al.  Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices. , 2004, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[12]  R. Mayo,et al.  Nasal coarticulation in normal speakers: a re-examination of the effects of gender. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[13]  M. Dorman,et al.  Performance of Patients Using Different Cochlear Implant Systems: Effects of Input Dynamic Range , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Erin C Schafer,et al.  Speech recognition abilities of adults using cochlear implants with FM systems. , 2004, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[15]  René H Gifford,et al.  Speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in a realistic background noise: effectiveness of preprocessing strategies and external options for improving speech recognition in noise. , 2010, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[16]  T. Ricketts,et al.  Head angle and elevation in classroom environments: implications for amplification. , 2008, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[17]  P. Dawson,et al.  Optimizing Dynamic Range in Children Using the Nucleus Cochlear Implant , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[18]  I. Anderson,et al.  Three-year follow-up of children with open-set speech recognition who use the MED-EL cochlear implant system , 2004, Cochlear implants international.