Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant recipients' thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels.

Clinically, speech processor programs are created using electrical thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels (MALs) at several different stimulation rates to determine what rate will provide cochlear implant recipients with the best speech recognition when using fast-rate speech coding strategies. This study was designed to determine the difference in thresholds and MALs (expressed in the clinical unit, Current Level [CL]) for pairs of six rates spanning those available with the Nucleus 24 device (i.e., 250 to 2,400 pps/ch) using monopolar, 25 microsec/phase stimulation. Test-retest measures of threshold and MAL for each rate were obtained from seven adult Nucleus 24 recipients on each of 11 electrodes. The difference in threshold and in MAL between pairs of rates was dependent on the absolute CL. Below approximately 190 CL, thresholds and MALs decreased with increasing rate; above 210 CL, there was little change in threshold or MAL with increasing rate. Based on these findings, an approach to estimating threshold and MAL from one rate to another is suggested, pending further research.

Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the multipeak (MPEAK) and spectral peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies II. Consonants.

OBJECTIVE: The major objective of this study was to evaluate differences in consonant recognition with the Multipeak (MPEAK) and the Spectral Peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies of the Nucleus-22 Cochlear Implant System. This objective was addressed by comparison of acoustic and electrode activation analyses of consonants with cochlear implant recipients' responses to these same consonant tokens when they used the two speech coding strategies. DESIGN: Nine subjects identified 14 English consonants with the MPEAK and SPEAK speech coding strategies. These strategies were compared with an ABAB design. Evaluation occurred during two weekly sessions after subjects used each strategy for at least 3 wk in everyday life. RESULTS: Group medial consonant [aCa] identification scores with the SPEAK strategy were significantly higher than with the MPEAK strategy (76.2% versus 67.5%; p < 0.001). This improvement was largely due to the significant increase in information transmitted for the place feature (p < 0.001) through accurate tracking of second formant transitions and spectrally specific stimulation patterns to differentiate [s] from [symbol see text] and [n] from [m], and the stop consonant bursts. For this reason, more nasal consonants were correctly identified with SPEAK, but there also were more non-nasal error responses when the nasal murmur was of unusually low amplitude. Consequently, significantly less information was transmitted for the nasality feature with SPEAK than MPEAK (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Electrical stimulation with the SPEAK strategy provided better spectral representation of the stop consonant bursts, tracking formant transitions into the following vowel, frication in the consonant [symbol see text], and the formants for the nasals [m] and [n] than with the MPEAK strategy. The marked improvement in recognition of the velar consonants, [g] and [k], which cannot be seen during speechreading, should allow greater ease and accuracy of communication with SPEAK than MPEAK.

Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant.

Minimum stimulation levels for active electrodes in a Nucleus 22 cochlear implant were set at threshold (clinical default value) and raised levels (M = +2.04 dB) to determine if raised levels would improve recipients' understanding of soft speech sounds with the SPEAK speech coding strategy. Eight postlinguistically deaf adults participated in a 4-phase A1B1A2B2 test design. Speech recognition was evaluated with consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant (CNC) words in quiet and sentences in noise, both presented at 50, 60, and 70 dB SPL during 2 weekly sessions at the end of each phase. Group mean scores were significantly higher with the raised level program for words and phonemes at 50 and 60 dB SPL and for sentences at 50 and 70 dB SPL. All participants chose to use the raised level program in everyday life at the end of the study. The results suggest that clinical use of a raised level program for Nucleus 22 recipients has the potential to make soft sounds louder and, therefore, more salient in everyday life. Further research is needed to determine if this approach is appropriate for other cochlear implant devices.

Parameter selection to optimize speech recognition with the Nucleus implant.

Speech coding strategy, frequency boundary assignment table, and speech processor program minimum and maximum stimulation levels are parameters of the Nucleus Cochlear Implant System whose selection affects speech recognition performance in adults and children. Research studies show that speech recognition is significantly better with (1) the Spectral Peak than with the Multipeak speech coding strategy and (2) frequency boundary assignment Table 7 than with Table 9 in an individual's speech processor program (MAP). Minimum and maximum stimulation levels in this MAP are based on psychophysical measurements on each electrode but often need to be modified for optimum use in everyday life. Many children and adults have increases, decreases, or fluctuations in electrical hearing that require changes in the MAP minimum and maximum levels to maintain their ability to recognize speech and other sounds.

Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants.

Ten postlinguistically deaf adults who used the Nucleus Cochlear Implant System and SPEAK speech coding strategy responded to vowels, consonants, words, and sentences presented sound-only at 70, 60, and 50 dB sound-pressure level. Highest group mean scores were at a raised-to-loud level of 70 dB for consonants (73%), words (44%), and sentences (87%); the highest score for vowels (70%) was at a conversational level of 60 dB. Lowest group mean scores were at a soft level of 50 dB for vowels (56%), consonants (47%), words (10%), and sentences (29%); all except subject 7 had some open-set speech recognition at this level. For the conversational level (60 dB), group mean scores for sentences and words were 72% and 29%, respectively. With this performance and sound-pressure level, it was observed that these subjects communicated successfully in a variety of listening situations. Given these subjects' speech recognition scores at 60 dB and the fact that 70 dB does not simulate the vocal effort used in everyday speaking situations, it is suggested that cochlear implant candidates and implantees be evaluated with speech tests presented at 60 dB instead of the customary 70 dB sound-pressure level to simulate benefit provided by implants in everyday life. Analysis of individuals' scores at the three levels for the four speech materials revealed different patterns of speech recognition among subjects (e.g., subjects 1 and 5). Future research on the relation between stimuli, sound processing, and subjects' responses associated with these different patterns may provide guidelines to select parameter values with which to map incoming sound onto an individual's electrical dynamic range between threshold and maximum acceptable loudness level to improve speech recognition.

Speech recognition with the MPEAK and SPEAK speech-coding strategies of the Nucleus Cochlear Implant.

The Spectra 22 Speech Processor and spectral peak (SPEAK) speech-coding strategy provide Nucleus 22 Channel Cochlear Implant (Cochlear, Corp., Englewood, Colo.) users with a better understanding of speech than the previous Mini Speech Processor and Multipeak (MPEAK) speech-coding strategy. On the NU-6 Monosyllabic Word Test, subjects scored 13% higher for words and 14% higher for phonemes with the SPEAK strategy than with the MPEAK strategy. On the Connected Speech Test and the CID Everyday Sentence Test, subjects scored 32% and 37% higher, respectively, with SPEAK than with MPEAK.

Effects of formant bandwidth on the identification of synthetic vowels by cochlear implant recipients.

OBJECTIVE: The main objective was to investigate whether the broadening and narrowing of formant bandwidths had a significant effect on the identification of vowels often confused by Nucleus cochlear implant recipients using the Spectral Peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategy. Specifically, identification performance for synthetic vowels with the first two formants (F1 and F2) parametrically varied in bandwidth was explored. DESIGN: Eight implanted subjects identified synthetic versions of the isolated vowel sounds [I, epsilon, lambda, [symbol: see text]] with F1 and F2 bandwidth manipulations, as well as foil tokens of [i, u, a, ae, [symbol: see text]]. Identification performance was examined in terms of percent correct as well as error patterns. Further analyses compared patterns of electrode activation. RESULTS: In general, broader F1 bandwidths yielded poorer performance and narrower F1 bandwidths yielded better performance relative to identifications for the reference stimuli. However, similar manipulations of F2 bandwidths resulted in less predictable performance. Comparison of electrode activation patterns indicated a distinct sharpening or flattening in the F1 frequency region for subjects with the greatest performance extremes. CONCLUSIONS: Manipulation of F1 bandwidth can result in concomitant changes in electrode activation patterns and identification performance. This suggests that modifications in the SPEAK coding strategy for the F1 region may be a consideration. Similar manipulations of F2 bandwidth yielded less predictable results and require further investigation.

Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the Multipeak (MPEAK) and Spectral Peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies. I. Vowels.

OBJECTIVE: The main objective was to evaluate differences in performance associated with the two speech coding strategies. To achieve this objective, acoustic and electrical analyses of vowels identified by cochlear implant recipients were compared with their responses when they used the Multipeak (MPEAK) and the Spectral Peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies of the Nucleus Cochlear Implant System. DESIGN: Nine subjects identified pure and r-colored English vowels with the two speech coding strategies. The two processing strategies were compared using an ABAB design. Evaluations were conducted at two weekly sessions after at least 3 wk of use with each strategy. RESULTS: Group vowel identification scores with the MPEAK versus the SPEAK strategy were not significantly different (72.3% and 73.4%, respectively). However, hierarchical loglinear analysis of group data showed that transmitted information of r-color, duration, and second-formant features was significantly better with the SPEAK than with the MPEAK strategy. In contrast, identification of the first formant feature was significantly better with the MPEAK than with the SPEAK strategy. Individual subjects had different error patterns in response to the 14 vowels. CONCLUSIONS: Electrical stimulation with the SPEAK strategy provides clearer spectral representation of second formant and duration information as well as second and third formant change in r-colored vowels than with the MPEAK strategy. Consequently, there was marked improvement in recognition of r-colored vowels with SPEAK compared with MPEAK. In contrast, transmitted information for first-formant features was significantly less with SPEAK than with MPEAK. This may have occurred because four instead of six to eight electrodes were assigned to first formant frequencies with SPEAK versus MPEAK.

Comparison of procedures for obtaining thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels with the nucleus cochlear implant system.

Two stimulus paradigms and two presentation methods were combined to form three procedures (keyboard, knob, and ascending loudness judgments with knob [ALJK]) to obtain detection thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels (MALs) from 11 adults with the Nucleus cochlear implant. Thresholds at which subjects correctly counted the number of stimulus bursts also were obtained. Keyboard detection thresholds were higher (Scheffé, p = .01) than knob and ALJK detection thresholds. Counted thresholds were obtained most efficiently by using keyboard detection thresholds as the initial level for testing. Keyboard MALs were highest, knob MALs intermediate, and ALJK MALs lowest (Scheffé, p = .001). MALs were obtained most efficiently with the ALJK procedure. Implications of these results for clinical practice are discussed.

Use of test-retest measures to evaluate performance stability in adults with cochlear implants.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate performance stability with test-retest measures of electrical thresholds, electrical maximum acceptable loudness levels, sound-field thresholds, and audition-only speech tests. The hypothesis was that the standard error of measurement differs from one individual to another for each test, and therefore test-retest measures need to be obtained from each subject. DESIGN: Test-retest data were obtained in three sets. For the first two sets, data were obtained over 4 successive weeks to determine day-to-day variability. The third set was obtained on 2 successive days, 2 to 10 months later at each subject's annual evaluation. The seven subjects were recipients of the Nucleus cochlear implant and used the Mini Speech Processor at least one year. They were selected because they were available for research testing. RESULTS: The ranges of electrical thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels obtained from each subject during the first two sets were substantially larger on some electrodes than on others. Between set 1 and set 2 for each subject, there were significant differences between thresholds and between maximum acceptable loudness levels on some electrodes. For thresholds as well as maximum acceptable loudness levels, the standard error of measurement across the three sets and 10 electrodes differed among subjects. The group standard error of measurement for sound-field thresholds was small (2 dB). The group standard error of measurement for the NU-6 word test scored according to phonemes (2.75%) was less than half that for the vowel (6.06%) and consonant (5.67%) tests. The standard error of measurement for each speech test differed among subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The standard error of measurement for thresholds as well as maximum acceptable loudness levels varies among electrodes in the same subject and among subjects across electrodes. The standard error of measurement also varies among speech tests for the group as well as among subjects for each speech test. There is little variation in test-retest measures of sound-field thresholds among subjects. These results suggest the clinical importance of obtaining test-retest measures for evaluating the stability of electrical thresholds, electrical maximum acceptable loudness levels, and speech tests.

Study of the performance of four prelinguistically or perilinguistically deaf patients with a multi-electrode, intracochlear implant.

Individuals who are born deaf or become deaf in early childhood and are implanted as adults (or in late adolescence) with a multi-electrode, intracochlear implant often cannot understand speech by audition alone. Test results of four implanted patients were analyzed to determine 1. if there was a difference in performance between patients; 2. if there was a relation between performance and history of auditory stimulation; and 3. which tests revealed performance differences. On audition-only and audition-plus-vision tests, overall performance was rank-ordered from lowest to highest for patients 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Patient 4 recognized a few words audition-only. Patients 1 and 2 had long periods of no auditory stimulation; patients 3 and 4 had long periods of auditory stimulation with hearing aids prior to implantation. Tests not revealing differences in performance were identified.

Performance of postlinguistically deaf adults with the Wearable Speech Processor (WSP III) and Mini Speech Processor (MSP) of the Nucleus Multi-Electrode Cochlear Implant.

Seven postlinguistically deaf adults implanted with the Nucleus Multi-Electrode Cochlear Implant participated in an evaluation of speech perception performance with three speech processors: the Wearable Speech Process (WSP III), a prototype of the Mini Speech Processor, and the Mini Speech Processor. The first experiment was performed with the prototype and Wearable Speech Processor both programmed using the F0F1F2 speech coding strategy. The second experiment compared performance with the Mini Speech Processor programmed with the Multi-Peak speech coding strategy and the Wearable Speech Processor programmed with the F0F1F2 speech coding strategy. Performance was evaluated in the sound-only condition using recorded speech tests presented in quiet and in noise. Questionnaires and informal reports provided information about use in everyday life. In experiment I, there was no significant difference in performance using the Wearable Speech Processor and prototype on any of the tests. Nevertheless, six out of seven subjects preferred the prototype for use in everyday life. In experiment II, performance on open-set tests in quiet and noise was significantly higher with the Mini Speech Processor (Multi-Peak speech coding strategy) than with the Wearable Speech Processor. Subjects reported an increase in their ability to communicate with other people using the Mini Speech Processor (Multi-Peak speech coding strategy) compared with the Wearable Speech Processor in everyday life.

Comparison of benefit from vibrotactile aid and cochlear implant for postlinguistically deaf adults.

Four postlinguistically deaf adults were evaluated presurgically with a one- or two-channel vibrotactile aid and postsurgically with a multichannel, multielectrode, intracochlear implant. Although the vibrotactile aid provided awareness of sound and enhanced flow of conversation, benefit to lipreading was small on videotaped tests and speech tracking. Scores on recorded, sound-only speech tests were not significantly above chance except in discrimination of noise from voice. With the cochlear implant, benefit to lipreading was significantly greater than with the vibrotactile aid, and scores on sound-only tests were significantly above chance. Communication was markedly better with the implant than with the vibrotactile aid. In counseling those who get no benefit from a hearing aid, the results of this study provide data on the amount of benefit one- or two-channel vibrotactile aids provide postlinguistically deaf adults who are subsequently implanted.