- Original article
- Open Access
Improvement of cochlear implant performance: changes in dynamic range
The Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology volume 31, pages36–41(2015)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Liberman AM, Cooper FS, Shankweiler DP, Studdert-Kennedy M. Perception of speech code. Psychol Rev 1967; 74: 431–461.
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.
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.
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.
Ling D. Speech and the hearing-impaired child: theory and practice. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf; 1967.
Ling D. Foundations of spoken language for the hearing-impaired child. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf; 1989.
Ling D. Speech and the hearing impaired child. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing; 2002.
Soliman S. Speech discrimination audiometry using Arabic balanced words. Ain Shams Med J 1976; 27: 27–30.
Tawfik S, Shehata W, Shalabi A. Development of Arabic speech intelligibility in noise (SPIN) test. Ain Shams Med J 1992; 3: 677–682.
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.
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.
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.
Franck K, Xu L, Pfingst B. Effects of stimulus level on speech perception with cochlear prostheses. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2002; 04: 49–59.
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.
Shannon RV. Threshold and loudness functions for pulsatile stimulation of cochlear implants. Hear Res 1985; 18: 135–143.
Padilla M, Landsberger D. Loudness summation using focused and unfocused electrical stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 135: EL102.
Bierer JA, Middlebrooks JC. Auditory cortical images of cochlear implant stimuli: dependence on electrode configuration. J Neurophysiol 2002; 87: 478–492.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
About this article
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
- cochlear implant
- input dynamic range
- speech performance