Skip to main content

Improvement of cochlear implant performance: changes in dynamic range

En

Abstract

Context

Theoretically, a wide input dynamic range (IDR) will capture more of the incoming acoustic signal than a narrow IDR, allowing the cochlear implant (CI) user to hear soft, medium, and loud sound. A narrow IDR may restrict the CI user’s ability to hear soft speech and sound because less of the incoming acoustic signal is being mapped into the CI user′s electrical dynamic range.

Aim

The overall goal of the study is to provide guidelines for audiologists to efficiently and effectively optimize performance of CI recipients for two difficult listening situations: understanding soft speech and speech in noise.

Settings and design

Two variables were studied; the independent variables were IDR and the electric dynamic range of the channels. The dependent variables were six Ling sounds, monosyllabic word test, and speech in noise test.

Materials and methods

Fourteen patients participated in the study. For each patient, seven programs were created. In each program, dependent variables were assessed in different independent ones.

Results

A restricted IDR resulted in poor speech recognition compared with the relatively wide IDR. Subjectively determined T level and most comfortable level (MCL) at the most, not the maximum, comfortable level appears to have a positive effect on both soft sound recognition and speech discrimination.

Conclusion

Dynamic range is an important factor -among others- to improve the ability of CI users to understand soft speech as well as speech in noise.

References

  1. 1

    Donaldson GS, Chisolm TH, Blasco GP, Shinnick LJ, Ketter KJ, Krause JC. BKB-SIN and ANL predict perceived communication ability in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2009; 30: 401–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Holden L, Reeder R, Firszt J, Finley Ch. Optimizing the perception of soft speech and speech in noise with the advanced bionics cochlear implant system. Int J Audiol 2011; 50: 255–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Oxenham A, Bacon S. In: Bacon SP, Fay RR, Popper AN, editors. Psychophysical manifestations of compression: normal-hearing listeners. Compression from cochlea to cochlear implants. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2004. 62–106.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Liberman AM, Cooper FS, Shankweiler DP, Studdert-Kennedy M. Perception of speech code. Psychol Rev 1967; 74: 431–461.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Holden LK, Skinner MW, Fourakis MS, Holden TA. Effect of increased IIDR in the nucleus freedom cochlear implant system. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18: 778–791.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Laura K, Holden A, Ruth M, Reeder A, Jill B, Firszt A, et al. Optimizing the perception of soft speech and speech in noise with the advanced bionics cochlear implant system. Int J Audiol 2011; 50: 255–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Jacquelyn B, Jamie C, Jill B, Ruth M, Jerrica L. Optimization of programming parameters in children with the advanced bionics cochlear implant. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23: 302–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Ling D. Speech and the hearing-impaired child: theory and practice. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Ling D. Foundations of spoken language for the hearing-impaired child. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Ling D. Speech and the hearing impaired child. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Soliman S. Speech discrimination audiometry using Arabic balanced words. Ain Shams Med J 1976; 27: 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Tawfik S, Shehata W, Shalabi A. Development of Arabic speech intelligibility in noise (SPIN) test. Ain Shams Med J 1992; 3: 677–682.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Skinner MW, Holden LK, Holden TA, Demorest ME. Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1999; 42: 814–828.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Zeng F, Grant G, Niparko J, Galvin J, Shannon R, Jane Opie J, Phil Segel Ph. Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111: 377–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Loiselle LH. Performance of patients using zdifferent cochlear implant systems: effects of input dynamic range. Ear Hear 2007; 28: 260–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Franck K, Xu L, Pfingst B. Effects of stimulus level on speech perception with cochlear prostheses. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2002; 04: 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Shannon RV. Threshold and loudness functions for pulsatile stimulation of cochlear implants. Hear Res 1985; 18: 135–143.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Padilla M, Landsberger D. Loudness summation using focused and unfocused electrical stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 135: EL102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Bierer JA, Middlebrooks JC. Auditory cortical images of cochlear implant stimuli: dependence on electrode configuration. J Neurophysiol 2002; 87: 478–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Pfingst BE, Franck KH, Xu L, Bauer EM, Zwolan TA. Effects of electrode configuration and place of stimulation on speech perception with cochlear prostheses. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2001; 2: 87–103.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Loizou Ph, Poroy O. Minimum spectral contrast needed for vowel identification by normal hearing and cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 110:1619–1627.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Fu Q, Shannon R. Effect of acoustic dynamic range on phoneme recognition in quiet and noise by cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 106: 65–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Loizou P, Dorman M, Fitzke J. The effect of reduced dynamic range on speech understanding: implications for patients with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2000; 21: 25–31.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Kam AC, Yee IH, Cheng MM, Wong TK, Tong MC. Evaluation of the clear voice strategy in adults using HiResolution Fidelity 120 sound processing. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 5: S89–S92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Kewley PD, Burkle TZ, Lee JH. Hyperlink “http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17902871” Contribution of consonant versus vowel information to sentence intelligibility for young normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2007;122:2365–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Baudhuin J, Cadieux J, Firszt J, Reeder R, Maxson J. Optimization of programming parameters in children with the advanced bionics cochlear implant. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23: 302–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed Khater MD.

Additional information

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khater, A., El Shennaway, A. & Anany, A. Improvement of cochlear implant performance: changes in dynamic range. Egypt J Otolaryngol 31, 36–41 (2015). https://doi.org/10.4103/1012-5574.152706

Download citation

Keywords

  • cochlear implant
  • input dynamic range
  • speech performance