Kerrie Plant

Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system

Objective To investigate the effect of varying electrical stimulation rate on speech comprehension by cochlear implant users, while keeping the number of stimulated channels constant. Design Three average rates of electrical stimulation, 250, 807, and 1615 pulses per second per channel (pps/ch), were compared using a speech processing strategy that employed an electrode selection technique similar to that used in the Spectral Ma-ima Sound Processor strategy (McDermott, McKay, & Vandali, 1992; McDermott & Vandali, Reference Note 1; McKay, McDermott, Vandali, & Clark, 1991) and the Spectral Peak strategy (Skinner et al., 1994; Whitford et al., 1995). Speech perception tests with five users of the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system were conducted over a 21-wk period. Subjects were given take-home experience with each rate condition. A repeated ABC evaluation protocol with alternating order was employed so as to account for learning effects and to minimize order effects. Perception of open-set monosyllabic words in quiet and open-set sentences at signal to noise ratios ranging from +20 to 0 dB, depending on the subject’s ability, were tested. A comparative performance questionnaire was also administered. Results No statistical differences in group performance between the 250 and 807 pps/ch rates were observed in any of the speech perception tests. However, significantly poorer group performance was observed for the 1615 pps/ch rate for some tests due predominantly to the results of one subject. Analysis of individual scores showed considerable variation across subjects. For some subjects, one or more of the three rate conditions evaluated provided benefits on some speech perception tasks. The results of the comparative performance questionnaire indicated a preference for the 250 and 807 pps/ch rates over the 1615 pps/ch rate for most listening situations. Conclusions For the speech processing strategy, implant system, and subjects evaluated in this study, the group results indicated that the use of electrical stimulation rates higher than 250 pps/ch (up to 1615 pps/ch) generally provided no significant improvement to speech comprehension. However, individual results indicated that perceptual benefits could be obtained by adjusting rate of stimulation optimally to suit each subject. Results from one subject, together with tinnitus problems arising from high-rate stimulation for another subject, indicated that high rates of stimulation may in fact be undesirable for some subjects.

Speech recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults

Objective The objective of this study was to determine whether 1) the SPEAK, ACE or CIS speech coding strategy was associated with significantly better speech recognition for individual subjects implanted with the Nucleus CI24M internal device who used the SPrint™ speech processor, and 2) whether a subject’s preferred strategy for use in everyday life provided the best speech recognition. Design Twelve postlinguistically deaf, newly implanted adults participated. Initial preference for the three strategies was obtained with paired-comparison testing on the first day of implant stimulation with seven of eight U.S. subjects. During the first 12 wk, all subjects used each strategy alone for 4 wk to give them experience with the strategy and to identify preferred speech processor program parameters and settings that would be used in subsequent testing. For the next 6 wk, subjects used one strategy at a time for 2-wk intervals in the same order they had for the first 12 wk. At the end of each 2-wk interval, speech recognition testing was conducted with all three strategies. At the end of the 6 wk, all three strategies were placed on each subject’s processor, and subjects were asked to compare listening with these three programs in as many situations as possible for the next 2 wk. When they returned, subjects responded to a questionnaire asking about their preferred strategy and responded to two lists of medial consonants using each of the three strategies. The U.S. subjects also responded to two lists of medial vowels with the three strategies. Results Six of the 12 subjects in the present study had significantly higher CUNY sentence scores with the ACE strategy than with one or both of the other strategies; one of the 12 subjects had a significantly higher score with SPEAK than with ACE. In contrast, only two subjects had significantly higher CNC word and phoneme scores with one or two strategies than with the third strategy. One subject had a significantly higher vowel score with the SPEAK strategy than with the CIS strategy; and no subjects had significantly higher consonant scores with any strategy. Seven of 12 subjects preferred the ACE strategy, three preferred the SPEAK strategy, and two preferred the CIS strategy. Subjects’ responses on a questionnaire agreed closely with strategy preference from comparisons made in everyday life. There was a strong relation between the preferred strategy and scores on CUNY sentences but not for the other speech tests. For all subjects, except one, the preferred strategy was the one with the highest CUNY sentence score or was a strategy with a CUNY score not significantly lower than the highest score. Conclusions Despite differences in research design, there was remarkably close agreement in the pattern of group mean scores for the three strategies for CNC words and CUNY sentences in noise between the present study and the Conversion study (Arndt, Staller, Arcaroli, Hines, & Ebinger, Reference Note 1). In addition, essentially the same percentage of subjects preferred each strategy. For both studies, the strategy with which subjects had the highest score on the CUNY sentences in noise evaluation was strongly related to the preferred strategy; this relation was not strong for CNC words, CNC phonemes, vowels or consonants (Skinner, Arndt, & Staller, 2002). These results must be considered within the following context. For each strategy, programming parameters preferred for use in everyday life were determined before speech recognition was evaluated. In addition, implant recipients had experience listening with all three strategies in many situations in everyday life before choosing a preferred strategy. Finally, 11 of the 12 subjects strongly preferred one of the three strategies. Given the results and research design, it is recommended that clinicians fit each strategy sequentially starting with the ACE strategy so that the preferred programming parameters are determined for each strategy before recipients compare pairs of strategies. The goal is to provide the best opportunity for individuals to hear in everyday life within a clinically acceptable time period (e.g., 6 wk).

Conversion from the SPEAK to the ACE strategy in children using the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception and speech production outcomes.

Objective The main objective of this study was to assess whether speech perception and speech production in children using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system improved with a change in speech processing strategy from the SPEAK to the Advanced Combination Encoder (ACE) strategy. The major difference between the two strategies is that ACE uses a higher stimulation rate (in this study the stimulation rate was 900 Hz per channel) compared with the SPEAK strategy, where the stimulation rate is 250 Hz per channel. Information also was obtained regarding the adjustment period after conversion to the ACE strategy. Design An ABA experimental design was used where scores were initially obtained using the SPEAK strategy (in the initial A time interval), and subsequently performance was assessed using the ACE strategy (B time interval) and then again with the SPEAK strategy (second A time interval). The duration of the B interval was 10 wk, and the duration for the second A interval was 4 wk. Seven children aged between 9 and 16 yr who had at least 6 mo experience with the SPEAK strategy participated. Open-set monosyllabic CNC word perception in quiet and Speech Intelligibility Test sentence perception in noise was evaluated at the end of each of the time intervals. Word perception was also monitored at fortnightly intervals during the B time interval. Speech production was assessed at the end of the initial A time interval and at the end of the B time interval. Results Mean word and phoneme scores for open-set words in quiet for the group of seven children were significantly higher with the ACE strategy as compared with the SPEAK strategy scores obtained in both of the A time intervals. For sentences in noise, mean scores using the ACE strategy as well as the SPEAK strategy at the second A evaluation point were significantly higher than the scores using the SPEAK strategy measured at the first A time interval. This suggests that learning effects may have influenced outcomes. For some subjects, an initial decrease in scores was found during the initial 2-wk period after fitting the ACE strategy; however, scores subsequently were found to be similar to or higher than those when using the initial SPEAK strategy. Analysis of speech production assessments showed an improvement in the medial consonant scores after using the ACE strategy. Conclusions This study demonstrated that some children were able to benefit from the additional information provided by the ACE strategy as compared with the SPEAK strategy. However, the differences in overall performance between the two strategies appear to be relatively small.

Evaluation of the Nucleus Spectra 22 Processor and New Speech Processing Strategy (SPEAK) in Postlinguistically Deafened Adults

A new speech processing strategy (SPEAK) has been compared with the previous Multipeak (MPEAK) strategy in a study with 24 postlinguistically deafened adults. The results show that performance with the SPEAK coding strategy was significantly better for 58.31% of subjects on closed-set consonant identification, for 33.3% of subjects on closed-set vowel identification and open-set monosyllabic word recognition, and for 81.8% of subjects on open-set sentence recognition in quiet and in competing noise (+ 10 dB signal-to-noise ratio). By far the largest improvement observed was for sentence recognition in noise, with the mean score across subjects for the SPEAK strategy twice that obtained with MPEAK.

Dual electrode stimulation using the nucleus CI24RE cochlear implant: electrode impedance and pitch ranking studies.

Objective: The first aim of the study was to determine the reduction in electrode impedances using dual electrode stimulation compared with single electrode stimulation in the new Nucleus CI24RE receiver-stimulator. The CI24RE is connected to the Nucleus 22-electrode intracochlear array. Dual electrode stimulation is produced by electrically coupling two adjacent single electrodes. The second aim was to determine whether dual electrode stimulation produced pitch percepts that were intermediate to the pitch of the two adjacent single electrodes. Design: Eight postlingually hearing-impaired adults with severe to profound loss, implanted with the CI24RE, participated in the study. Electrode impedances were measured by using the standard telemetry function of the system. A pitch ranking task was used to measure pitch for dual and single electrodes. Seven sets of three electrodes along the electrode array were tested. Each set of electrodes consisted of a dual electrode and the two adjacent single electrodes. Pitch ranking was measured using a two-alternative forced choice procedure, with the three electrodes in each set paired with each other as AB and BA pairs. The subject indicated which of the two stimuli had the higher pitch. Random variation in current level was used to remove any loudness cues. Results: The average electrode impedance was 38.6% lower for dual electrodes compared with single electrodes. Three subjects were able to successfully rank the three electrodes in each set in the expected tonotopic order for all seven sets of electrodes along the array. Three other subjects were able to rank sets of electrodes in the tonotopic order for most of the tested positions on the array. The remaining two subjects gave more variable pitch ranking across positions along the array, although successful tonotopic ranking was demonstrated for several sets of electrodes. Conclusions: Dual electrode stimulation with the CI24RE receiver-stimulator produced systematically lower electrode impedances and was capable of producing pitch percepts that were intermediate to those produced by the corresponding adjacent single electrodes. This makes available up to 43 channels of stimulation from 22 single electrodes.

Evaluation of streamlined programming procedures for the Nucleus cochlear implant with the Contour electrode array.

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate streamlined programming procedures for the Nucleus cochlear implant system with the Contour electrode array. Design: Phase 1 involved an examination of the clinical MAPs for the first 103 recipients implanted with the Contour electrode array in the Melbourne Cochlear Implant Clinic, to examine the ability to predict the entire MAP based on a smaller number of clinically determined T- and/or C-levels. In phase 2, a subset of the streamlined procedures was selected and clinically evaluated, using speech perception and subjective preference measures. In the first study, the clinical MAP was compared with a MAP based on interpolating across three behavioral T-levels and three behavioral C-levels in a group of newly implanted subjects. The second study investigated the use of a single interpolated profile as the basis to creating the entire MAP. Initial evaluation compared the clinical MAP with two streamlined MAPs, one in which the C-level profile was derived from interpolation across a subset of T-levels and one in which the T-level profile was derived from interpolation across a subset of C-levels. In this case, the interpolated profile was based on five behavioral measures. Subsequently, the use of either three or a single T-level measure as the basis for the interpolated T-level profile was evaluated. Eighteen subjects, who were experienced with the clinical MAP before enrollment in the study, participated in the initial evaluation. The subjects were selected to include a group whose RMS deviation from clinical MAP levels, as determined in Phase 1, was greater than that of the wider population. Results: The Phase 1 analysis showed that as expected, larger differences were observed between the clinical and derived MAP levels as interpolation was applied across fewer measured electrodes and that the use of a single interpolated profile to create the entire MAP resulted in the greatest deviation. No significant group mean difference was found in speech perception scores for newly implanted subjects when mapped with the clinical versus the streamlined MAP based on three behavioral T- and three behavioral C-level measures. For some individual subjects, scores were higher with the streamlined MAP. Subjective reports from the comparative performance questionnaire were consistent with these findings. No significant group mean difference in speech perception scores was found in comparing the clinical MAP with the streamlined MAPs based on a single interpolated T- or C-level profile created from five behavioral measures. Individual effects were observed; however, there was no consistent finding across subjects. The use of three rather than five behavioral T-level measures in the procedure did not result in significantly lower group mean scores; however, significantly poorer scores were obtained for three of the 10 individual subjects. The use of a MAP based on a single behavioral measure did result in poorer speech perception scores when compared with the MAP based on five behavioral T-level measures. These findings were consistent with subjective results from the performance questionnaires administered to determine preference for program across a range of listening situations. Conclusions: Two streamlined programming procedures are recommended for use in the clinical setting: (1) interpolating across three measured T-levels and three measured C-levels and (2) interpolating across five measured T- or C-levels and using the interpolated profile for fitting of the alternative profile.

Clinical evaluation of higher stimulation rates in the nucleus research platform 8 system.

Objective: The effect on speech perception of using higher stimulation rates than the 14.4 kHz available in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system was investigated. The study used the Nucleus Research Platform 8 (RP8) system, comprising the CI24RE receiver-stimulator with the Contour electrode array, the L34SP body-worn research speech processor, and the Nucleus Programming Environment (NPE) fitting and Neural Response Telemetry (NRT) software. This system enabled clinical investigation of higher stimulation rates before an implementation in the Freedom cochlear implant system commercially released by Cochlear Limited. Design: Use of higher stimulation rates in the ACE coding strategy was assessed in 15 adult subjects. An ABAB experimental design was used to control for order effects. Program A used a total stimulation rate of between 12 kHz and 14.4 kHz. This program was used for at least the first 3 mo after initial device activation. After evaluation with this program, each subject was provided with two different higher stimulation rate programs: one with a total stimulation rate of 24 kHz and the other with a total stimulation rate of 32 kHz. After a 6-week period of familiarization, each subject identified his/her preferred higher rate program (program B), and this was used for the evaluation. Subjects then repeated their use of program A for 3 wk, then program B for 3 wk, before the second evaluation with each. Speech perception was evaluated by using CNC open-set monosyllabic words presented in quiet and CUNY open-set sentences presented in noise. Preference for stimulation rate program was assessed via a subjective questionnaire. Threshold (T)- and Comfortable (C)-levels, as well as subjective reports of tinnitus, were monitored for each subject throughout the study to determine whether there were any changes that might be associated with the use of higher stimulation rates. Results: No significant mean differences in speech perception results were found for the group between the two programs for tests in either quiet or noise. Analysis of individual subject data showed that five subjects had significant benefit from use of program B for tests administered in quiet and for tests administered in noise. However, only two of these subjects showed benefit in both test conditions. One subject showed significant benefit from use of program A when tested in quiet, whereas another showed benefit with this program in noise. Each subject’s preferred program varied. Five subjects reported a preference for program A, eight subjects reported a preference for program B and two reported no overall preference. Preference between the different stimulation rates provided within program B also varied, with 10 subjects preferring 24 kHz and five preferring 32 kHz total stimulation rates. A significant increase in T-levels from baseline measures was observed after three weeks of initial experience with program B, however there was no difference between the baseline levels and those obtained after five weeks of use. No significant change in C-levels was found over the monitoring period. No long-term changes in tinnitus that could be associated with the use of the higher stimulation rates were reported by any of the subjects. Conclusions: The use of higher stimulation rates may provide benefit to some but not all cochlear implant recipients. It is important to optimize the stimulation rate for an individual to ensure maximal benefit. The absence of any changes in T- and C-levels or in tinnitus suggests that higher stimulation rates are safe for clinical use.

Parameter selection and programming recommendations for the ACE and CIS speech-processing strategies in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system

Abstract This study evaluated a range of programming parameters available for the ACE and CIS speech-processing strategies in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Specifically, the effect on speech perception of adjustments to the number of channels and the stimulation rate in the CIS strategy, and the effect of adjustments to the number of maxima in the ACE strategy were investigated in a group of adult subjects. Based on these findings, and the results of a previous study (Vandali et al., 2000), a number of recommendations for programming were identified that could improve efficiency in the clinical setting where time may be limited. The results suggest that speech perception benefits may be maximized for an individual cochlear implant recipient through concentration on selection of the appropriate stimulation rate. When using the CIS strategy, the number of channels should also be optimized. Adjustment to the number of maxima in the ACE strategy was found to be less likely to provide improvements in speech recognition for a given individual when the number of maxima parameter is set to eight or 12.

Evaluation of NRT and behavioral measures for MAPping elderly cochlear implant users

We investigated the acceptability of electrophysiologically derived MAPs and the effect of these MAPs on speech perception in elderly adults using Nucleus 24 cochlear implants. Eight implant recipients aged 75 years or older trialed an electrophysiologically derived MAP and a behavioral MAP. The electrophysiologically derived MAP was based on the threshold and maximum comfort level for electrode 10 and evoked compound action potential thresholds measured on six electrodes using neural response telemetry (NRT). Word perception at 55 dB SPL and sentence perception in noise at 70 dB SPL were assessed after six weeks take-home experience and again after an additional two weeks of experience. During the final two weeks of take-home experience participants indicated their preferred MAP for different listening situations. The NRT derived MAP estimated behavioral T levels well, but underestimated behavioral C levels for apical electrodes in some subjects. Speech perception with NRT derived MAPs was comparable to speech perception with behaviorally measured MAPs. MAPs estimated from NRT data provided good speech perception outcomes for elderly implant recipients and were well tolerated.

Factors Predicting Postoperative Unilateral and Bilateral Speech Recognition in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients with Acoustic Hearing.

Objectives: The first objective was to examine factors that could be predictive of postoperative unilateral (cochlear implant alone) speech recognition ability in a group of subjects with greater degrees of preoperative acoustic hearing than has been previously examined. Second, the study aimed to identify factors predictive of speech recognition in the best-aided, bilateral listening condition. Design: Participants were 65 postlinguistically hearing-impaired adults with preoperative phoneme in quiet scores of greater than or equal to 46% in one or both ears. Preoperative demographic and audiometric factors were assessed as predictors of 12-month postoperative unilateral and bilateral monosyllabic word scores in quiet and of bilateral speech reception threshold (SRT) in babble. Results: The predictive regression model accounted for 34.1% of the variance in unilateral word recognition scores in quiet. Factors that predicted better scores included: a shorter duration of severe to profound hearing loss in the implanted ear; and poorer pure-tone-averaged thresholds in the contralateral ear. Predictive regression models of postimplantation bilateral function accounted for 36.0% of the variance for word scores in quiet, and 30.9% of the variance for SRT in noise. A shorter duration of severe to profound hearing loss in the implanted ear, a lower age at the time of implantation, and better contralateral hearing thresholds were associated with higher bilateral word recognition in quiet and SRT in noise. Conclusions: In this group of cochlear implant recipients with preoperative acoustic hearing, a shorter duration of severe to profound hearing loss in the implanted ear was shown to be predictive of better unilateral and bilateral outcomes. However, further research is warranted to better understand the impact of that factor in a larger number of subjects with long-term hearing impairment of greater than 30 years. Better contralateral hearing was associated with poorer unilateral word scores with the implanted ear alone, but better absolute bilateral speech recognition. As a result, it is clear that different models would need to be developed to predict unilateral and bilateral postimplantation scores.