Speech Perception with Cochlear Implants as Measured Using a Roving-Level Adaptive Test Method

Aims: This paper uses a new method of speech testing where the hearing aid or cochlear implant (CI) users are tested in a more realistic listening situation. Methods: Groups of 11 subjects matched for performance with 5 different CI systems, for a total of 55 subjects, were tested with an adaptive test regime where the presentation level of the speech signal roved by ±10 or ±15 dB. Results: Speech reception thresholds varied widely between –4.8 and 17.3 dB with the ±15 dB roving condition being more difficult than the ±10 dB roving condition. We also found significant differences in speech reception threshold between groups using different devices. Conclusion: The test method used in our study, which attempts to test CI users in a more realistic listening situation, is sensitive to the effects of various subject-specific and technical parameters on everyday speech perception with CIs.

[1]  E Lehnhardt,et al.  Prognostic factors in 187 adults provided with the Nucleus cochlear mini-system 22. , 1993, Advances in oto-rhino-laryngology.

[2]  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.

[3]  H. Levitt.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Blake S Wilson,et al.  Cochlear implants: current designs and future possibilities. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[5]  David Shipp,et al.  Speech Coding Strategies and Revised Cochlear Implant Candidacy: An Analysis of Post-Implant Performance , 2003, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[6]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Performance Groups in Adult Cochlear Implant Users: Speech Perception Results From 1984 Until Today , 2008, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[7]  B C Moore,et al.  Optimization of a slow-acting automatic gain control system for use in hearing aids. , 1991, British journal of audiology.

[8]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Evaluation of Advanced Bionics high resolution mode , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[10]  D J Orchik,et al.  Speech recognition ability as a function of duration of deafness in multichannel cochlear implant patients , 1990, The Laryngoscope.

[11]  James F Patrick,et al.  The Development of the Nucleus® Freedom™ Cochlear Implant System , 2006, Trends in amplification.

[12]  L H Mens,et al.  Predictors of cochlear implant performance. , 1999, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[13]  B C Moore,et al.  A comparison of four methods of implementing automatic gain control (AGC) in hearing aids. , 1988, British journal of audiology.

[14]  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.

[15]  Andreas Büchner,et al.  Comparison of dual-time-constant and fast-acting automatic gain control (AGC) systems in cochlear implants , 2009, International journal of audiology.

[16]  I. Hochmair-Desoyer,et al.  The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[17]  T Lenarz,et al.  Factors influencing cochlear implant perceptual performance in 132 adults. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[18]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Side effects of fast-acting dynamic range compression that affect intelligibility in a competing speech task. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  S. Gelfand.  Essentials of Audiology , 1997 .

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

[21]  Francis Kuk,et al.  Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: Audiologic assessment and predictors of performance , 1988, The Laryngoscope.