Speech Production Quality of Cochlear Implant Users with Respect to Duration and Onset of Hearing LossRuff S.a · Bocklet T.b · Nöth E.b · Müller J.c · Hoster E.d · Schuster M.c
aORL Clinic Frankfurt/Oder, Frankfurt/Oder, bDepartment of Computer Science, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, and cDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and dInstitute of Medical Informatics, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Purpose: To assess whether postlingual onset and shorter duration of deafness before cochlear implant (CI) provision predict higher speech intelligibility results of CI users. Methods: For an objective judgement of speech intelligibility, we used an automatic speech recognition system computing the word recognition rate (WR) of 50 adult CI users and 50 age-matched control individuals. All subjects were recorded reading a standardized text. Subjects were divided into three groups: pre- or perilingual deafness (A), both >2 years before implantation, postlingual deafness <2 years before implantation (B), or postlingual deafness >2 years before implantation (C). Results: CI users with short duration of postlingual deafness (B) had a significantly higher WR (median 74%) than CI users with long duration of postlingual deafness (C; 68%, p < 0.001) or pre-/perilingual onset (A; 56%, p < 0.001). Compared to their control groups only CI users with short duration of postlingual deafness reached similar WR, others showed significantly lower WR. Other factors such as hearing loss onset, duration of CI use, or duration of amplified hearing showed no consistent influence on speech quality. Conclusions: The speech production quality of adult CI users shows dependencies on the onset and duration of deafness. These features need to be considered while planning rehabilitation.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
- Leder SB, Spitzer JB: A perceptual evaluation of the speech of adventitiously deaf adult males. Ear Hear 1990;11:169-175.
- Svirsky MA, Sagi E, Meyer TA, Kaiser AR, Teoh WS: A mathematical model of medial consonant identification by cochlear implant users. J Audiol Soc Am 2011;129:2191-2200.
- Müller J, Brill S, Hagen R, Moeltner A, Brockmeier SJ, Stark T, Helbig S, Maurer J, Zahnert T, Zierhofer C, Nopp P, Anderson I: Clinical trial results with the MED-EL fine structure processing coding strategy in experienced cochlear implant users. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2012;74:185-198.
- Kleine Punte A, De Bodt M, van de Heyning P: Long-term improvement of speech perception with the fine structure processing coding strategy in cochlear implants. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2014;76:36-43.
- Stevens KN: Diverse acoustic cues at consonantal landmarks. Phonetica 2000;57:139-151.
- Teoh SW, Neuburger HS, Svirsky MA: Acoustic and electrical pattern analysis of consonant perceptual cues used by cochlear implant users. Audiol Neurootol 2003;8:269-285.
- Perkell J, Lane H, Svirsky M, Webster J: Speech of cochlear implant patients: a longitudinal study of vowel production. J Acoust Soc Am 1992;91:2961-2978.
- Tye-Murray N, Kirk K: Vowel and diphthong production by young users of cochlear implants and the relationship between the phonetic level evaluation and spontaneous speech. J Speech Hear Res 1993;36:488-502.
- Matthies M, Svirsky M, Lane H, Perkell J: A preliminary study of the effects of cochlear implants on the production of sibilants. J Acoust Soc Am 1994;96:1367-1373.
- Lane H, Wozniak J, Matthies M, Svirsky M, Perkell J: Phonemic resetting versus postural adjustments in the speech of cochlear implant users: an exploration of voice-onset time. J Acoust Soc Am 1995;98:3096-3106.
- Lane H, Matthies M, Perkell J, Vick J, Zandipour M: The effects of changes in hearing status in cochlear implant users on the acoustic vowel space and CV coarticulation. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2001;44:552-563.
- Perkell J, Numa W, Vick J, Lane H, Balkany T, Gould J: Language-specific, hearing-related changes in vowel spaces: a preliminary study of English- and Spanish-speaking cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2001;22:461-470.
- Schenk B, Baumgartner W, Hamzavi J: Changes in vowel quality after cochlear implantation. ORL 2003;65:184-188.
- Lane H, Denny M, Guenther FH, Hanson HM, Marrone M, Matthies ML, Perkell JS, Stockmann E, Tiede M, Vick J, Zandipour M: On the structure of phoneme categories in listeners with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007;50:2-14.
- Gould J, Lane H, Vick J, Perkell J, Matthies M, Zandipour M: Changes in speech intelligibility of postlingually deaf adults after cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 2001;22:453-460.
- Langereis MC, Dejonckere PH, van Olphen AF, Smoorenburg GF: Effect of cochlear implantation on nasality in post-lingually deafened adults. Folia Phoniatr Logop 1997;49:308-314.
- Neumeyer V, Harrington J, Draxler C: An acoustic analysis of the vowel space in young and old cochlear-implant speakers. Clin Linguist Phon 2010;24:734-741.
- Horga D, Liker M: Voice and pronunciation of cochlear implant speakers. Clin Linguist Phon 2006;20:211-217.
- Uchanski R, Geers A: Acoustic characteristics of the speech of young cochlear implant users: a comparison with normal-hearing age-mates. Ear Hear 2003;24(1 suppl):90S-105S.
- Guenther FH, Ghosh SS, Tourville JA: Neural modeling and imaging of the cortical interactions underlying syllable production. Brain Lang 2006;96:280-301.
- Menard L, Polak M, Denny M, Burton E, Lane H, Matthies ML, Marrone N, Perkell JS, Tiede M, Vick J: Interactions of speaking condition and auditory feedback on vowel production in postlingually deaf adults with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2007;121:3790-3801.
- Perkell JS, Zandipour M, Matthies ML, Lane H: Economy of effort in different speaking conditions. I. A preliminary study of intersubject differences and modeling issues. J Acoust Soc Am 2002;112:1627-1641.
- Lazard DS, Vincent C, Venail F, van de Heyning P, Truy E, Sterkers O, Skarzynski PH, Skarzynski H, Schauwers K, O'Leary S, Mawman D, Maat B, Kleine-Punte A, Huber AM, Green K, Govaerts PJ, Fraysse B, Dowell R, Dillier N, Burke E, Beynon A, Bergeron F, Başkent D, Artières F, Blamey PJ: Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time. PLoS One 2012;7:e48739.
Schiavetti N: Scaling procedures for the measurement of speech intelligibility; in: Intelligibility in Speech Disorders: Theory, Measurement and Management. Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 1992, pp 11-34.
Ziegler W, Hartmann E, Cramon DY: Word identification testing in the diagnostic evaluation of dysarthric speech. Clin Linguist Phon 1998;2:291-308.
- Kitzing P, Maier A, Ahlander VL: Automatic speech recognition (ASR) and its use as a tool for assessment or therapy of voice, speech, and language disorders. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 2009;34:91-96.
- Windrich M, Maier A, Kohler R, Nöth E, Nkenke E, Eysholdt U, Schuster M: Automatic quantification of speech intelligibility of adults with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2008;60:151-156.
Maier A, Haderlein T, Eysholdt U, Rosanowski F, Batliner A, Schuster M, Nöth E: PEAKS - a system for the automatic evaluation of voice and speech disorders. Speech Commun 2009;51:425-437.
Schukat-Talamazzini EG, Niemann H: Das ISADORA-System - ein akustisch-phonetisches Netzwerk zur automatischen Spracherkennung. Mustererkennung 1991;290:251-258.
Gallwitz F, Niemann H, Nöth E: Speech recognition - state of the art, application, and future prospects. Wirtschaftsinformatik 1999;41:538-547.
- Schuster M, Haderlein T, Nöth E, Lohscheller J, Eysholdt U, Rosanowski F: Intelligibility of laryngectomees' substitute speech: automatic speech recognition and subjective rating. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006;263:188-193.
- Schuster M, Maier A, Haderlein T, Nkenke E, Wohlleben U, Rosanowski F, Eysholdt U, Nöth E: Evaluation of speech intelligibility for children with cleft lip and palate by means of automatic speech recognition. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2006;70:1741-1747.
Haderlein T, Eysholdt U, Riedhammer K, Nöth E, Rosanowski F: Automatisierung des Postlaryngektomie-Telefontests (PLTT); in Gross M, Kruse E (eds): Aktuelle phoniatrisch-pädaudiologische Aspekte 2007. Norderstedt, Books on Demand GmbH, 2007, pp 66-69.
- Cosetti M, Roland JT Jr: Cochlear implantation in the very young child: issues unique to the under-1 population. Trends Amplif 2010;14:46-57.
- Mayr S, Burkhardt K, Schuster M, Maier A, Rogler K, Iro H: The use of automatic speech recognition showing the influence of nasality on speech intelligibility. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010;267:1719-1725.
- Scherf F, van Deun L, van Wieringen A, Wouters J, Desloovere C, Dhooge I, Offeciers E, Deggouj N, De Raeve L, Wuyts FL, van de Heyning P: Subjective benefits of sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in young children after 18 months of implant use. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2009;71:112-121.
- Paal S, Reulbach U, Strobel-Schwarthoff K, Nkenke E, Schuster M: Evaluation of speech disorders in children with cleft lip and palate. J Orofac Orthop 2005;66:270-278.
- Maier A, Höning F, Bocklet T, Nöth E, Stelzle F, Nkenke E, Schuster M: Automatic detection of articulation disorders in children with cleft lip and palate. J Acoust Soc Am 2009;126:2589-2602.
- Brown KD, Balkany TJ: Benefits of bilateral cochlear implantation: a review. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;15:315-318.
- Culling JF, Jelfs S, Talbert A, Grange JA, Backhouse SS: The benefit of bilateral versus unilateral cochlear implantation to speech intelligibility in noise. Ear Hear 2012;33:673-682.
- Finley C, Holden T, Holden L, Whiting B, Chole R, Neely G, Hullar T, Skinner M: Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:920-928.
- Berrettini S, Forli F, Passetti S: Preservation of residual hearing following cochlear implantation: comparison between three surgical techniques. J Laryngol Otol 2008;122:246-252.
- Miranda P, Sampaio A, Lopes R, Ramos Venosa A, de Oliveira C: Hearing preservation in cochlear implant surgery. Int J Otolaryngol 2014;2014:468515.
- An YS, Kim ST, Chung JW: Preoperative voice parameters affect the postoperative speech intelligibility in patients with cochlear implantation. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2012;5:69-72.
- Gordon KA, Wong DD, Valero J, Jewell SF, Yoo P, Papsin BC: Use it or lose it? Lessons learned from the developing brains of children who are deaf and use cochlear implants to hear. Brain Topogr 2011;24:204-219.
- Petersen B, Gjedde A, Wallentin M, Vuust P: Cortical plasticity after cochlear implantation. Neural Plast 2013;2013:318521.
Wilpon JG, Jacobsen CN: A study of speech recognition for children and the elderly. ICASSP '96 Proceedings of Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing 1996;1:349-352.
- Peng SC, Tomblin JB, Spencer LJ, Hurtig RR: Imitative production of rising speech intonation in pediatric cochlear implant recipients. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007;50:1210-1227.
- Tanamati LF, Bevilacqua MC, Costa OA: Cochlear implant in postlingual children: functional results 10 years after the surgery. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2012;78:103-110.
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.