1-year results using the Opus speech processor with the fine structure speech coding strategy

Riss, Dominik; Arnoldner, Christoph; Reiss, Sonja; Baumgartner, Wolf‐Dieter; Hamzavi, Jafar

doi:10.1080/00016480802552485

Cited by 27 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Improved vowel and monosyllabic word scores support the claim suggested by results of the questionnaires (see above) that FSP may indeed provide better everyday listening outcomes for users than the CIS+ strategy. Our improved speech perception results in quiet are in line with multiple other studies showing a benefit of FSP in speech understanding in children and adults [14,33,35,36,37]. However, whereas sentence perception in noise was not significantly different with FSP and HDCIS from CIS+ in our study, study outcomes by Vermeire et al [37] as well as other research groups [14,33,36] demonstrated statistically significant improvement of speech understanding in noise with FSP compared to the CIS or CIS+ coding strategy.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Our improved speech perception results in quiet are in line with multiple other studies showing a benefit of FSP in speech understanding in children and adults [14,33,35,36,37]. However, whereas sentence perception in noise was not significantly different with FSP and HDCIS from CIS+ in our study, study outcomes by Vermeire et al [37] as well as other research groups [14,33,36] demonstrated statistically significant improvement of speech understanding in noise with FSP compared to the CIS or CIS+ coding strategy. It is to note, however, that the follow-up time in both Vermeire’s [37] and Riss’ [36] studies was 12 months, which indicates that subjects might need more time to get fully accustomed to the FSP coding strategy and to learn to use the cues that are available with FSP to greater benefit in speech understanding in noise.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical Trial Results with the MED-EL Fine Structure Processing Coding Strategy in Experienced Cochlear Implant Users

Müller

Brill

Hagen

et al. 2012

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To assess the subjective and objective performance of the new fine structure processing strategy (FSP) compared to the previous generation coding strategies CIS+ and HDCIS. Methods: Forty-six adults with a minimum of 6 months of cochlear implant experience were included. CIS+, HDCIS and FSP were compared in speech perception tests in noise, pitch scaling and questionnaires. The randomized tests were performed acutely (interval 1) and again after 3 months of FSP experience (interval 3). The subjective evaluation included questionnaire 1 at intervals 1 and 3, and questionnaire 2 at interval 2, 1 month after interval 1. Results: Comparison between FSP and CIS+ showed that FSP performed at least as well as CIS+ in all speech perception tests, and outperformed CIS+ in vowel and monosyllabic word discrimination. Comparison between FSP and HDCIS showed that both performed equally well in all speech perception tests. Pitch scaling showed that FSP performed at least as well as HDCIS. With FSP, sound quality was at least as good and often better than with HDCIS. Conclusions: Results indicate that FSP performs better than CIS+ in vowel and monosyllabic word understanding. Subjective evaluation demonstrates strong user preferences for FSP when listening to speech and music.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Clinical Trial Results with the MED-EL Fine Structure Processing Coding Strategy in Experienced Cochlear Implant Users

Müller

Brill

Hagen

et al. 2012

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, transmitting more fine structure through cochlear implants to users might be an effective approach to improving pitch perception for them (e.g., Nie et al 2005). So far, however, little evidence has shown that any of the fine-structure strategies would make a dramatic improvement for lexical tone perception or music perception in cochlear implant users (e.g., Riss et al 2008Riss et al , 2009Han et al 2009;Firszt et al 2009;Schatzer et al 2010). Many studies have shown that cochlear implant users could only detect differences in pitch for frequencies up to about 300 Hz (e.g., Shannon 1983; Zeng 2002), which is much poorer than that observed in normal-hearing listeners (Carlyon and Deeks 2002).…”

Section: Implications For Cochlear Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative Contributions of Temporal Envelope and Fine Structure Cues to Lexical Tone Recognition in Hearing-Impaired Listeners

Wang

Mannell

2011

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been reported that normal-hearing Chinese speakers base their lexical tone recognition on fine structure regardless of temporal envelope cues. However, a few psychoacoustic and perceptual studies have demonstrated that listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment may have an impaired ability to use fine structure information, whereas their ability to use temporal envelope information is close to normal. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relative contributions of temporal envelope and fine structure cues to lexical tone recognition in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired native Mandarin Chinese speakers. Twenty-two normal-hearing subjects and 31 subjects with various degrees of sensorineural hearing loss participated in the study. Sixteen sets of Mandarin monosyllables with four tone patterns for each were processed through a "chimeric synthesizer" in which temporal envelope from a monosyllabic word of one tone was paired with fine structure from the same monosyllable of other tones. The chimeric tokens were generated in the three channel conditions (4, 8, and 16 channels). Results showed that differences in tone responses among the three channel conditions were minor. On average, 90.9%, 70.9%, 57.5%, and 38.2% of tone responses were consistent with fine structure for normal-hearing, moderate, moderate to severe, and severely hearing-impaired groups respectively, whereas 6.8%, 21.1%, 31.4%, and 44.7% of tone responses were consistent with temporal envelope cues for the above-mentioned groups. Tone responses that were consistent neither with temporal envelope nor fine structure had averages of 2.3%, 8.0%, 11.1%, and 17.1% for the above-mentioned groups of subjects. Pure-tone average thresholds were negatively correlated with tone responses that were consistent with fine structure, but were positively correlated with tone responses that were based on the temporal envelope cues. Consistent with the idea that the spectral resolvability is responsible for fine structure coding, these results demonstrated that, as hearing loss becomes more severe, lexical tone recognition relies increasingly on temporal envelope rather than fine structure cues due to the widened auditory filters.

show abstract

“…While these improvements in simulation are intriguing, there remain considerable practical difficulties associated with increasing fine-structure detail for CI users. Ongoing efforts to increase fine structure via the creation of "virtual" electrodes (e.g., McDermott and McKay, 1994;Geurts and Wouters, 2004;Firszt et al, 2007;Berenstein et al, 2008;Landsberger and Srinivasan, 2009) or the provision of fine temporal detail (e.g., Rubinstein et al, 1999;Arnoldner et al, 2007;Riss et al, 2009) have met with limited success. In general, results show some improvement in pitch detection or discrimination, but limited gains to speech reception in noise (Berenstein et al, 2008;Firszt et al, 2009;Han et al, 2009;Riss et al, 2009;Shannon et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening

Tillery¹,

Brown²,

Bacon³

2012

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implant users report difficulty understanding speech in both noisy and reverberant environments. Electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) is known to improve speech intelligibility in noise. However, little is known about the potential benefits of EAS in reverberation, or about how such benefits relate to those observed in noise. The present study used EAS simulations to examine these questions. Sentences were convolved with impulse responses from a model of a room whose estimated reverberation times were varied from 0 to 1 sec. These reverberated stimuli were then vocoded to simulate electric stimulation, or presented as a combination of vocoder plus low-pass filtered speech to simulate EAS. Monaural sentence recognition scores were measured in two conditions: reverberated speech and speech in a reverberated noise. The long-term spectrum and amplitude modulations of the noise were equated to the reverberant energy, allowing a comparison of the effects of the interferer (speech vs noise). Results indicate that, at least in simulation, (1) EAS provides significant benefit in reverberation; (2) the benefits of EAS in reverberation may be underestimated by those in a comparable noise; and (3) the EAS benefit in reverberation likely arises from partially preserved cues in this background accessible via the low-frequency acoustic component.

show abstract

1-year results using the Opus speech processor with the fine structure speech coding strategy

Abstract: Mean speech perception scores showed a trend towards improvement for all tests. A statistically significant (p < 0.05) improvement was only observed for the sentence test in noise at 10 dB SNR.

Cited by 27 publications

References 4 publications

Clinical Trial Results with the MED-EL Fine Structure Processing Coding Strategy in Experienced Cochlear Implant Users

Clinical Trial Results with the MED-EL Fine Structure Processing Coding Strategy in Experienced Cochlear Implant Users

Relative Contributions of Temporal Envelope and Fine Structure Cues to Lexical Tone Recognition in Hearing-Impaired Listeners

Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About