Objective Cochlear implant recipients often have limited access to lower level speech sounds. In this study we evaluated the effects of varying the input range characteristics of the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system on recognition of vowels, consonants, and sentences in noise and on listening in everyday life. Design Twelve subjects participated in the study that was divided into two parts. In Part 1 subjects used speech processor (Nucleus 24 SPrint™) programs adjusted for three input sensitivity settings: a standard or default microphone sensitivity setting (MS 8), a setting that increased the input sensitivity by 10.5 dB (MS 15), and the same setting that increased input sensitivity but also incorporated the automatic sensitivity control (ASC; i.e., MS 15A) that is designed to reduce the loudness of noise. The default instantaneous input dynamic range (IIDR) of 30 dB was used in these programs (i.e., base level of 4; BL 4). Subjects were tested using each sensitivity program with vowels and consonants presented at very low to casual conversational levels of 40 dB SPL and 55 dB SPL, respectively. They were also tested with sentences presented at a raised level of 65 dB SPL in multi-talker babble at individually determined signal to noise ratios. In addition, subjects were given experience outside of the laboratory for several weeks. They were asked to complete a questionnaire where they compared the programs in different listening situations as well as the loudness of environmental sounds, and state the setting they preferred overall. In Part 2 of the study, subjects used two programs. The first program was their preferred sensitivity program from Part 1 that had an IIDR of 30 dB (BL 4). Seven subjects used MS 8 and four used MS 15, and one used the noise reduction program MS 15A. The second program used the same microphone sensitivity but had the IIDR extended by an additional 8 to 10 dB (BL 1/0). These two programs were evaluated similarly in the speech laboratory and with take-home experience as in Part 1. Results Part 1 Increasing the microphone input sensitivity by 10.5 dB (from MS 8 to MS 15) significantly improved the perception of vowels and consonants at 40 and 55 dB SPL. The group mean improvement in vowel scores was 25 percentage points at 40 dB SPL and 4 percentage points at 55 dB SPL. The group mean improvement for consonants was 23 percentage points at 40 dB SPL and 11 percentage points at 55 dB SPL. Increased input sensitivity did not significantly reduce the perception of sentences presented at 65 dB SPL in babble despite the fact that speech peaks were then within the compressed range above the SPrint processor's automatic gain control (AGC) knee-point. Although there was a demonstrable advantage for perception of low-level speech with the higher input sensitivity (MS 15 and 15A), seven of the 12 subjects preferred MS 8, four preferred MS 15 or 15A, and one had no preference overall. Approximately half the subjects preferred MS 8 across the 18 listening situations, whereas an average of two subjects preferred MS 15 or 15A. The increased microphone sensitivity of MS 15 substantially increased the loudness of environmental sounds. However, use of the ASC noise reduction setting with MS 15 reduced the loudness of environmental sounds to equal or below that for MS 8. Results Part 2 The increased instantaneous input range gave some improvement (8 to 9 percentage points for the 40 dB SPL presentation level) in the perception of consonants. There was no statistically significant increase in vowel scores. Mean scores for sentences presented at 65 dB SPL in babble were significantly lower (5 percentage points) for the increased IIDR setting. Subjects had no preference for the increased IIDR over the default. The IIDR setting had no effect on the loudness of environmental sounds. Conclusions Given the fact that individuals differ in threshold (T) and comfort (C) levels for electrical stimulation, and preferred microphone sensitivity, volume control, and noise-reduction settings, it is essential for the clinician and recipient to determine what combination is best for the individual over several sessions. The results of this study clearly show the advantage of using higher microphone sensitivity settings than the default MS 8 to provide better speech recognition for low-level stimuli. However, it was also necessary to adjust other parameters such as map C levels, automatic sensitivity control and base level, to optimize loudness comfort in the diversity of listening situations an individual encounters in everyday life.
[1]
M. Demorest,et al.
Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants.
,
1997,
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[2]
A. Boothroyd,et al.
The Hearing Aid Input: A Phonemic Approach to Assessing the Spectral Distribution of Speech
,
1994,
Ear and hearing.
[3]
G. Studebaker.
A "rationalized" arcsine transform.
,
1985,
Journal of speech and hearing research.
[4]
John Bamford,et al.
Speech-hearing tests and the spoken language of hearing-impaired children
,
1979
.
[5]
F G Zeng,et al.
Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners.
,
1999,
Ear and hearing.
[6]
K. Plant,et al.
Speech Perception as a Function of Electrical Stimulation Rate: Using the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System
,
2000,
Ear and hearing.
[7]
Dennis G. Pappas.
Book Review: The Child and the Environment — Present and Future Trends
,
1995
.
[8]
H Rudert,et al.
Effects of noise on speech discrimination in cochlear implant patients.
,
1995,
The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.
[9]
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.
[10]
Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.
Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance.
,
2002,
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[11]
H J McDermott,et al.
Perceptual Performance of Subjects with Cochlear Implants Using the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor (SMSP) and the Mini Speech Processor (MSP)
,
1993,
Ear and hearing.
[12]
J. Hillenbrand,et al.
Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels.
,
1994,
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[13]
M W Skinner,et al.
Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant.
,
1999,
Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.
[14]
Margaret W Skinner,et al.
Nucleus® 24 Advanced Encoder Conversion Study: Performance versus Preference
,
2002,
Ear and hearing.
[15]
D. C. Howell.
Statistical Methods for Psychology
,
1987
.
[16]
G. E. Peterson,et al.
Control Methods Used in a Study of the Vowels
,
1951
.
[17]
Harvey Dillon,et al.
Sound Field Audiometry: Recommended Stimuli and Procedures
,
1984,
Ear and hearing.
[18]
M. Demorest,et al.
Use of Test‐Retest Measures to Evaluate Performance Stability in Adults with Cochlear Implants
,
1995,
Ear and hearing.
[19]
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.
[20]
J. Jerger,et al.
Preferred Method For Clinical Determination Of Pure-Tone Thresholds
,
1959
.
[21]
J. P. Morgan,et al.
Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook
,
2005,
Technometrics.
[22]
Peter J Blamey,et al.
Adaptive Dynamic Range Optimization for Cochlear Implants: A Preliminary Study
,
2002,
Ear and hearing.
[23]
P Seligman,et al.
Adjustment of appropriate signal levels in the Spectra 22 and mini speech processors.
,
1995,
The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.
[24]
J K Shallop,et al.
Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 Channel Cochlear Implant System.
,
1994,
The American journal of otology.
[25]
M Pelizzone,et al.
Effects of the Acoustical Dynamic Range on Speech Recognition with Cochlear Implants:Efectos en el rango dinámico del reconocimiento del habla con implantes cocleares
,
2001,
Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.