Audiology and Neurotology

Original Paper

Effects of Stimulation Rate on Speech Recognition with Cochlear Implants

Friesen L.M. · Shannon R.V. · Cruz R.J.

Author affiliations

House Ear Institute, Los Angeles, Calif., USA

Keywords: Cochlear implantsHigh rate stimulationSpeech recognitionSpeech processing

Related Articles for ""
Audiol Neurootol 2005;10:169–184
https://doi.org/10.1159/000084027

Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.




Forgot your password
Sign up to MyKarger

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more
CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!


If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.

Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • 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

Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates

Select
* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: June 29, 2004
Accepted: November 15, 2004
Published online: May 06, 2005
Issue release date: May – June

Number of Print Pages: 16
Number of Figures: 3
Number of Tables: 5

ISSN: 1420-3030 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9700 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/AUD

Abstract

Phoneme and speech recognition were measured as a function of stimulation pulse rate in 12 listeners with three types of cochlear implants. Identification of consonants and vowels and recognition of words and sentences were measured in 5 Clarion C1 subjects fit with continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) processors having 4 or 8 electrodes, 4 Nucleus 24 subjects fit with CIS processors having 4, 8, 12 or 16 electrodes and 3 Clarion C2 subjects fit with CIS processors with 4, 8, 12 and 16 electrodes. Stimulation rates ranged from 200 to more than 5000 Hz per electrode, depending on the device, number of electrodes used and stimulation strategy. Listeners were also tested on the same materials with their original processor prior to receiving the experimental processors. All testing was done in quiet listening conditions with essentially no practice with the experimental processor prior to data collection. Listeners scored the highest with their original processor. Little difference in speech understanding was observed for listener scores with processors using different stimulation rates. Speech recognition was significantly poorer only at the lowest stimulation rate and at high rates that used noninterleaved pulses. Speech recognition was similar for processors using 8, 12 or 16 electrodes. Only 4-electrode processors produced a significantly poorer performance. These results suggest that patients with present commercial implants are not able to make full use of the number of channels of spectral information delivered by the present speech processors. In addition, the results show no significant change in performance as a function of stimulation rate, suggesting that high stimulation rates do not result in improved access to temporal cues in speech, at least under quiet listening conditions.

© 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel



Related Articles:

References

  1. Advanced Bionics: Bionic Ear Programming System. Valencia, Advanced Bionics, 2001.
  2. Blamey PJ, Dowell RC, Tong YC, Clark GM: An acoustic model of a multiple channel cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 1984;76:97–104.
    External Resources
  3. Brill S, Gstöttner W, Helms J, von Ilberg C, Baumgartener W, Müller J, Keifer J: Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the Combi 40+. Am J Otol Suppl 1997;18:S104-S106.
  4. Brill SM, Hochmair I, Hochmair ES: The importance of stimulation rate in pulsatile stimulation strategies in cochlear implants. 24th International Congress of Audiology, Buenos Aires, 1998a.
  5. Brill SM, Schatzer R, Nopp P, Hochmair I, Hochmair ES: JCIS:CIS with temporally jittering stimulation pulses: Effect of jittering amplitude and stimulation rate on speech understanding. 4th European Symposium on Paediatric Cochlear Implantation, s-Hertogenbosch, 1998b.
  6. Buchner A, Gärtner L, Battmer R-D, Lenarz T: Clinical validation of the nucleus ESPrit 3G Speech Processor. 7th International Cochlear Implant Conference, Manchester, 2002.
  7. Burns EM, Viemeister NF: Nonspectral pitch. J Acoust Soc Am 1976;60:863–869.
    External Resources
  8. Burns EM, Viemeister NF: Played-again SAM: Further observations on the pitch of amplitude-modulated noise, J Acoust Soc Am 1981;70:1655–1660.
  9. Carlyon R, van Wieringen A, Long CJ, Deeks JM, Wouters J: Temporal pitch mechanisms in acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2002;112:621–633.
    External Resources
  10. Clarion by Advanced Bionics: SCLIN 98 for Windows Device Fitting Manual. Sylmar, Clarion, 1998.
  11. Chatterjee M, Robert ME: Noise enhances modulation sensitivity in cochlear implant listeners: Stochastic resonance in a prosthetic sensory system? J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2001;2:159–171.
    External Resources
  12. Cochlear Corporation: Audiologist Handbook. Englewood, Cochlear Corporation, 1995.
  13. Cochlear Corporation: Nucleus Technical Reference Manual. Englewood, Cochlear Corporation, 1999.
  14. Dorman MF, Loizou PC: Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants. Am J Otol 1997;18(suppl): S113–S114.
  15. Dorman MF, Loizou PC: The identification of consonants and vowels by cochlear implant patients using a 6-channel continuous interleaved sampling processor and by normal-hearing subjects using simulations of processors with two to nine channels. Ear Hear 1998;19:162–166.
    External Resources
  16. Dorman MF, Loizou PC, Fitzke J, Tu Z: The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6–20 channels. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:3583–3585.
    External Resources
  17. Dorman MF, Loizou PC, Rainey D: Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. J Acoust Soc Am 1997;102:2403–2411.
    External Resources
  18. Drullman R, Festen JM, Plomp R: Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am 1994;95:2670–2680.
    External Resources
  19. Eddington DK, Dobelle WH, Brackmann DE, Mladevosky MG, Parkin JL: Auditory prosthesis research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1978;87(suppl):1–39.
    External Resources
  20. Eddington DK, Rabinowitz WR, Tierney J, Noel V, Whearty M: Speech Processors for Auditory Prostheses. Eighth Quarterly Progress Report, NIH Contract N01-DC-6-2100, 1997.
  21. Fishman KA, Shannon RV, Slattery WH: Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J Speech Hear Res 1997;40:1201–1215.
    External Resources
  22. Friesen L, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X: Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants, J Acoust Soc Am 2001;110:1150–1163.
  23. Fu Q-J, Shannon RV: Effects of amplitude nonlinearity on phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:2570–2577.
    External Resources
  24. Fu Q-J, Shannon RV: Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2000;107:589–597.
    External Resources
  25. Fu Q-J, Shannon RV, Wang X: Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: Acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:3586–3596.
    External Resources
  26. Hill FJ, McRae LP, McClellan RP: Speech recognition as a function of channel capacity in a discrete set of channels. J Acoust Soc Am 1968;44:13–18.
    External Resources
  27. Hillenbrand J, Getty L, Clark M, Wheeler K: Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 1995;97:3099–3111.
    External Resources
  28. Holden LK, Skinner MW, Holden TA, Demorest ME: Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. Ear Hear 2002;23:463–476.
    External Resources
  29. House Ear Institute, Cochlear Corp: Minimum Speech Test Battery for Adult Cochlear Implant Users CD. House Ear Institute, Cochlear Corporation, 1996.
  30. Kiefer J, von Illberg C, Rupprecht V, Huber-Egener J, Knecht R: Optimized speech understanding with the continuous interleaved sampling speech coding strategy in patients with cochlear implants: Effect of variations in stimulation rate and number of channels. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2000;109:1009–1020.
    External Resources
  31. Lawson DT, Wilson BS, Zerbi M, Finley CC: Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Third Quarterly Progress Report, NIH Contract N01-DC-5-2103, 1996.
  32. Litvak LM, Delgutte B, Eddington DK: Auditory nerve fiber responses to electrical stimulation: Modulated and unmodulated pulse trains. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;10:368–379.
    External Resources
  33. Litvak LM, Delgutte B, Eddington DK: Desynchronization of electrically evoked auditory-nerve activity by high-frequency pulse trains of long duration. J Acoust Soc Am 2003a;114:2066–2078.
    External Resources
  34. Litvak LM, Delgutte B, Eddington DK: Improved temporal coding of sinusoids in electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve using desynchronizing pulse trains. J Acoust Soc Am 2003b;114:2079–2098.
    External Resources
  35. Litvak LM, Delgutte B, Eddington DK: Improved neural representation of vowels in electrical stimulation using desynchronizing pulse trains. J Acoust Soc Am 2003c;114:2099–2111.
    External Resources
  36. Loizou PC, Poroy O, Dorman M: The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am 2000;108:790–802.
    External Resources
  37. Miller G, Nicely P: An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. J Acoust Soc Am 1955;27:338–352.
    External Resources
  38. Morse RP, Evans EF: Enhancement of vowel coding for cochlear implants by addition of noise. Nat Med 1996;2:928–932.
    External Resources
  39. Plomp R: The role of modulation in hearing; in Klinke R, Hartmann R (eds): Hearing – Physiological Bases and Psychophysics. Berlin, Springer, 1983, pp 270–276.
  40. Robert ME: AIPSS-ID – Phoneme Identification Software. Los Angeles, House Ear Institute, 1997.
  41. Rosen S: Temporal information in speech and its relevance for cochlear implants. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 1992;336:367.
  42. Rubinstein JT, Wilson BS, Finley CC, Abbas PJ: Pseudospontaneous activity: Stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hear Res 1999;127:108–118.
    External Resources
  43. Shannon RV: Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. I. Basic psychophysics. Hear Res 1983;11:157–189.
    External Resources
  44. Shannon RV, Jensvold A, Padilla M, Robert M, Wang X: Consonant recordings for speech testing. J Acoust Soc Am 1999;106:L71–L74.
    External Resources
  45. Shannon RV, Zeng F-G, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M: Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995;270:303–304.
    External Resources
  46. Shannon RV, Zeng F-G, Wygonski J: Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:2467–2476.
    External Resources
  47. Simmons FB: Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. Arch Otolaryngol 1966;84:2–54.
    External Resources
  48. Standards Publication No 297: IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measurements,1969, au-17 (3), pp 225–246.
  49. Van Tasell DJ, Soli SD, Kirby VM, Widin GP: Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 1987;82:1152–1161.
    External Resources
  50. Tong YC, Blamey PJ, Dowell RC, Clark GM: Psychophysical studies evaluating the feasibility of a speech processing strategy for a multiple-channel cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 1983;74:73–80.
    External Resources
  51. Tong YC, Clark GM: Absolute identification of electric pulse rates and electrode positions by cochlear implant patients. J Acoust Soc Am 1985;77:1881–1888.
    External Resources
  52. Tong YC, Clark GM, Blamey PJ, Busby PA, Dowell RC: Psychophysical studies for two multiple-channel cochlear implant patients. J Acoust Soc Am 1982;71:153–160.
    External Resources
  53. Townsend B, Cotter N, Van Compernolle D, White RL: Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1987;82:106-115.
    External Resources
  54. Turner CW, Fabry DA, Barrett S, Horowitz AR: Detection and recognition of stop consonants by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Speech Hear Res 1992;35:942–949.
    External Resources
  55. Vandali AE, Whitford LA, Plant KL, Clark GM: Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: Using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear 2000;21:608–624.
    External Resources
  56. Viemeister NF: Temporal modulation transfer functions based upon modulation thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am 1979;66:1364–1380.
    External Resources
  57. Vischer M, Haenggeli A, Zhang J, Pelizzone M, Hausler R, Rouiller EM: Effect of high-frequency electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in an animal model of cochlear implants. Am J Otol Suppl 1997;18:S27–S29.
  58. Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson D, Zerbi M: Temporal representations with cochlear implants. Am J Otol 1997;18:S30–S34.
  59. Wilson BS, Wolford RD, Lawson DT: Speech Processors for Auditory Prostheses, Seventh Quarterly Progress Report, NIH Contract N01-DC-8-2105, June 2000.
  60. Xu L, Tsai Y, Pfingst BE: Features of stimulation affecting tonal-speech perception: Implications for cochlear prostheses. J Acoust Soc Am 2002;112:247–258.
    External Resources

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: June 29, 2004
Accepted: November 15, 2004
Published online: May 06, 2005
Issue release date: May – June

Number of Print Pages: 16
Number of Figures: 3
Number of Tables: 5

ISSN: 1420-3030 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9700 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/AUD

Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: 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.

Article Tools
Article Details

2005, Vol.10, No. 3

May – June

Article

Recommend This
TOP