Speech Recognition for Unilateral and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Modes in the Presence of Uncorrelated Noise Sources

Objective: The purpose of the current investigation was to compare speech recognition in noise for bilateral and unilateral modes within postlingually deafened, adult bilateral cochlear implant recipients. In addition, it was of interest to evaluate the time course of the bilateral speech-recognition advantage and the effect of changing signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) on the magnitude of the bilateral advantage. Design: In the first experiment, 16 postlingually deafened adults who were bilaterally implanted with the MED-EL C40+ cochlear device were evaluated in unilateral left, unilateral right, and bilateral conditions 4 to 7 mo after activation. Speech recognition in the presence of five spatially separated, uncorrelated noise sources was evaluated using both a single fixed SNR of +10 dB and an adaptive-SNR method. In a follow-up study, a subset of 10 participants was re-evaluated using an identical fixed-SNR method 12 to 17 mo after activation to examine the time course of speech-recognition performance in both unilateral and bilateral modes at a single SNR. A third study was performed with a subset of six participants to examine performance over a range of SNRs. In this study, speech recognition was measured 12 to 17 mo after activation in quiet and at +5, +10, +15, and +20 dB SNRs using the same five uncorrelated noise sources. Results: The speech-recognition data revealed a significant bilateral advantage of 3.3 dB using the adaptive-SNR method. A significant bilateral advantage of 9% was also measured using a fixed +10 dB SNR. Results from the second study revealed that experience resulted in a significant (11 to 20%) increase in speech-recognition-in-noise performance for both unilateral and bilateral modes; however, the magnitude of the bilateral advantage was not affected by experience. Results from the third study revealed the largest bilateral advantage at the poorest SNR evaluated. In addition, performance in quiet was significantly better than that measured in the presence of noise, even at the +20 dB SNR. Conclusions: The results of these experiments support a small but significant bilateral speech-recognition-in-noise advantage for cochlear implant recipients in an environment with multiple noise sources. This advantage is presumed to be attributable to the combined effects of binaural squelch and diotic summation. Although experience generally improved speech-recognition-in-noise performance in both unilateral and bilateral modes, a consistent bilateral advantage (approximately 10%) was measured at 4 to 7 mo and at 12 to 17 mo postactivation.

[1]  R Plomp,et al.  Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Richard S Tyler,et al.  Update on bilateral cochlear implantation , 2003, Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery.

[3]  T. Välimaa,et al.  Phoneme recognition and confusions with multichannel cochlear implants: vowels. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[4]  Richard S. Tyler,et al.  Cochlear Implantation: Relationships with Research on Auditory Deprivation and Acclimatization , 1996, Ear and hearing.

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

[6]  Jennifer Arcaroli,et al.  The Nucleus® 24 Contour™ Cochlear Implant System: Adult Clinical Trial Results , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[7]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Binaural Cochlear Implants Placed during the Same Operation , 2002, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[8]  M F Dorman,et al.  The Identification of Speech in Noise by Cochlear Implant Patients and Normal‐Hearing Listeners Using 6‐Channel Signal Processors , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[9]  H. Hildmann,et al.  Comparison of the TEMPO+ Ear-Level Speech Processor and the CIS PRO+ Body-Worn Processor in Adult MED-EL Cochlear Implant Users , 2001, ORL.

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

[11]  R M Cox,et al.  Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. , 1988, Ear and hearing.

[12]  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.

[13]  R. Tyler,et al.  Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  T T Välimaa,et al.  Speech perception and functional benefit after cochlear implantation: a multicentre survey in Finland , 2001, Scandinavian audiology.

[15]  T Ricketts,et al.  The Impact of Head Angle on Monaural and Binaural Performance with Directional and Omnidirectional Hearing Aids , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[16]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST) , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[17]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Benefits of Bilateral Electrical Stimulation with the Nucleus Cochlear Implant in Adults: 6-Month Postoperative Results , 2004, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[18]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Cochlear Implantation in Adults with Prelingual Deafness. Part I. Clinical Results , 2004, The Laryngoscope.

[19]  E S Hochmair,et al.  Influence of automatic gain control parameter settings on speech understanding of cochlear implant users employing the continuous interleaved sampling strategy. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[20]  M. Dorman,et al.  Adaptation by a Cochlear-Implant Patient to Upward Shifts in the Frequency Representation of Speech , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[21]  M Pelizzone,et al.  Within-patient longitudinal speech reception measures with continuous interleaved sampling processors for ineraid implanted subjects. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[22]  P. Nopp,et al.  Head Shadow, Squelch, and Summation Effects in Bilateral Users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ Cochlear Implant , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[23]  F. Zeng Trends in Cochlear Implants , 2004, Trends in amplification.

[24]  Paula P. Henry,et al.  Impact of Compression and Hearing Aid Style on Directional Hearing Aid Benefit and Performance , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[25]  M. Svirsky,et al.  Auditory learning and adaptation after cochlear implantation: a preliminary study of discrimination and labeling of vowel sounds by cochlear implant users. , 2001, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[26]  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.

[27]  R M Cox,et al.  Demonstration of Binaural Advantage in Audiometric Test Rooms , 1981, Ear and hearing.

[28]  T. Välimaa,et al.  Phoneme recognition and confusions with multichannel cochlear implants: consonants. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[29]  E. Domico,et al.  Speech Recognition in Background Noise of Cochlear Implant Patients , 2002, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[30]  Sigfrid D. Soli,et al.  Norms for the hearing in noise test: The influence of spatial separation, hearing loss, and English language experience on speech reception thresholds , 1992 .

[31]  F. Schön,et al.  Speech Reception Thresholds Obtained in a Symmetrical Four-Loudspeaker Arrangement from Bilateral Users of MED-EL Cochlear Implants , 2002, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[32]  H S Colburn,et al.  Speech intelligibility and localization in a multi-source environment. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  G. Studebaker,et al.  Intensity-importance functions for bandlimited monosyllabic words. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  J. Müller,et al.  Speech Understanding in Quiet and Noise in Bilateral Users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ Cochlear Implant System , 2002, Ear and hearing.