» Articles » PMID: 24653862

Effects of Electrical Stimulation Rate on Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users

Overview
Journal Korean J Audiol
Date 2014 Mar 22
PMID 24653862
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Objectives: The stimulus signals delivered in cochlear implant (CI) systems are generally derived by sampling the temporal envelope of each channel at some constant rate and using its intensity to control the stimulation current level delivered to the corresponding electrode site. The objective of the study was to investigate speech recognition performance of cochlear implant users in quiet and noisy environments using either moderate or high rates of electrical stimulations.

Materials And Methods: Six post-lingually deafened adult users of the Nucleus CI24 cochlear implant (Contour® electrode array, Cochlear™, Macquarie Park, Australia) with the Freedom® speech processor participated in the study. Stimulation rates of 900 and 2400 pulses-per-second/channel (pps/ch) were used after both stimulation programs were balanced for loudness. Monosyllabic word and sentence recognition scores in quiet and noisy environments were evaluated for each stimulation program after two months of practice. Subjects were also asked to respond to a questionnaire to examine their preference to any stimulation rate in different hearing conditions.

Results: Word recognition scores for monosyllabic words in quiet conditions with the 900 stimulation rate was better than that of the 2400 stimulation rate, although no significant differences between them were found for sentence test in noise. A survey questionnaire indicated that most subjects preferred the 900 stimulation rate to the 2400 stimulation rate, especially in quiet conditions.

Conclusions: Most subjects indicated a preference for 900 pps/ch rate in quiet conditions. It is recommended to remap at 900 pps/ch for those CI users whose performance in quiet conditions is less than ideal.

Citing Articles

The effect of a coding strategy that removes temporally masked pulses on speech perception by cochlear implant users.

Lamping W, Goehring T, Marozeau J, Carlyon R Hear Res. 2020; 391:107969.

PMID: 32320925 PMC: 7116331. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2020.107969.


The effect of presentation level and stimulation rate on speech perception and modulation detection for cochlear implant users.

Brochier T, McDermott H, McKay C J Acoust Soc Am. 2017; 141(6):4097.

PMID: 28618807 PMC: 5457292. DOI: 10.1121/1.4983658.


A contrastive analysis of laser heating between the human and guinea pig cochlea by numerical simulations.

Zhang K, Zhang Y, Li J, Wang Q Biomed Eng Online. 2016; 15(1):59.

PMID: 27216818 PMC: 4877982. DOI: 10.1186/s12938-016-0190-1.


Temporal properties of inferior colliculus neurons to photonic stimulation in the cochlea.

Tan X, Young H, Matic A, Zirkle W, Rajguru S, Richter C Physiol Rep. 2015; 3(8).

PMID: 26311831 PMC: 4562577. DOI: 10.14814/phy2.12491.

References
1.
Weber B, Lai W, Dillier N, Von Wallenberg E, Killian M, Pesch J . Performance and preference for ACE stimulation rates obtained with nucleus RP 8 and freedom system. Ear Hear. 2007; 28(2 Suppl):46S-48S. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3180315442. View

2.
Plant K, Whitford L, Psarros C, Vandali A . Parameter selection and programming recommendations for the ACE and CIS speech-processing strategies in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Cochlear Implants Int. 2008; 3(2):104-25. DOI: 10.1179/cim.2002.3.2.104. View

3.
Dreschler W, Verschuure H, Ludvigsen C, Westermann S . ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International Collegium for Rehabilitative Audiology. Audiology. 2001; 40(3):148-57. View

4.
Arora K, Dawson P, Dowell R, Vandali A . Electrical stimulation rate effects on speech perception in cochlear implants. Int J Audiol. 2009; 48(8):561-7. DOI: 10.1080/14992020902858967. View

5.
Vandali A, Whitford L, Plant K, Clark G . Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear. 2001; 21(6):608-24. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200012000-00008. View