Performance of Subjects Fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G Cochlear Implant Devices

Anthony J. Spahr, Michael Dorman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

103 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To determine if subjects who used different cochlear implant devices and who were matched on consonant-vowel-consonant (CNC) identification in quiet would show differences in performance on speech-based tests of spectral and temporal resolution, speech understanding in noise, or speech understanding at low sound levels. Designs: The performance of 15 subjects fit with the CII Bionic Ear System (CII Bionic Ear behind-the-ear speech processor with the Hi-Resolution sound processing strategy; Advanced Bionics Corporation) was compared with the performance of 15 subjects fit with the Nucleus 24 electrode array and ESPrit 3G behind-the-ear speech processor with the Advanced Combination Encoder speech coding strategy (Cochlear Corporation). Subjects: Thirty adults with late-onset deafness and above-average speech perception abilities who used cochlear implants. Main Outcome Measures: Vowel recognition, consonant recognition, sentences in quiet (74, 64, and 54 dB SPL [sound pressure level]) and in noise (+10 and +5 dB SNR [signal-to-noise ratio]), voice discrimination, and melody recognition. Results: Group differences in performance were significant in 4 conditions: vowel identification, difficult sentence material at +5 dB and +10 dB SNR, and a measure that quantified performance in noise and low input levels relative to performance in quiet. Conclusions: We have identified tasks on which there are between-group differences in performance for subjects matched on CNC word scores in quiet. We suspect that the differences in performance are due to differences in signal processing. Our next goal is to uncover the signal processing attributes of the speech processors that are responsible for the differences in performance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)624-628
Number of pages5
JournalArchives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Volume130
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2004

Fingerprint

Bionics
Cochlear Implants
Equipment and Supplies
Ear
Noise
Signal-To-Noise Ratio
Speech Perception
Aptitude
Cochlea
Deafness
Electrodes
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Pressure

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Performance of Subjects Fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G Cochlear Implant Devices. / Spahr, Anthony J.; Dorman, Michael.

In: Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 130, No. 5, 05.2004, p. 624-628.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c7d241c19f6a4e0fb59d4c5c43c59a34,
title = "Performance of Subjects Fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G Cochlear Implant Devices",
abstract = "Objective: To determine if subjects who used different cochlear implant devices and who were matched on consonant-vowel-consonant (CNC) identification in quiet would show differences in performance on speech-based tests of spectral and temporal resolution, speech understanding in noise, or speech understanding at low sound levels. Designs: The performance of 15 subjects fit with the CII Bionic Ear System (CII Bionic Ear behind-the-ear speech processor with the Hi-Resolution sound processing strategy; Advanced Bionics Corporation) was compared with the performance of 15 subjects fit with the Nucleus 24 electrode array and ESPrit 3G behind-the-ear speech processor with the Advanced Combination Encoder speech coding strategy (Cochlear Corporation). Subjects: Thirty adults with late-onset deafness and above-average speech perception abilities who used cochlear implants. Main Outcome Measures: Vowel recognition, consonant recognition, sentences in quiet (74, 64, and 54 dB SPL [sound pressure level]) and in noise (+10 and +5 dB SNR [signal-to-noise ratio]), voice discrimination, and melody recognition. Results: Group differences in performance were significant in 4 conditions: vowel identification, difficult sentence material at +5 dB and +10 dB SNR, and a measure that quantified performance in noise and low input levels relative to performance in quiet. Conclusions: We have identified tasks on which there are between-group differences in performance for subjects matched on CNC word scores in quiet. We suspect that the differences in performance are due to differences in signal processing. Our next goal is to uncover the signal processing attributes of the speech processors that are responsible for the differences in performance.",
author = "Spahr, {Anthony J.} and Michael Dorman",
year = "2004",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1001/archotol.130.5.624",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "130",
pages = "624--628",
journal = "JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery",
issn = "2168-6181",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Performance of Subjects Fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G Cochlear Implant Devices

AU - Spahr, Anthony J.

AU - Dorman, Michael

PY - 2004/5

Y1 - 2004/5

N2 - Objective: To determine if subjects who used different cochlear implant devices and who were matched on consonant-vowel-consonant (CNC) identification in quiet would show differences in performance on speech-based tests of spectral and temporal resolution, speech understanding in noise, or speech understanding at low sound levels. Designs: The performance of 15 subjects fit with the CII Bionic Ear System (CII Bionic Ear behind-the-ear speech processor with the Hi-Resolution sound processing strategy; Advanced Bionics Corporation) was compared with the performance of 15 subjects fit with the Nucleus 24 electrode array and ESPrit 3G behind-the-ear speech processor with the Advanced Combination Encoder speech coding strategy (Cochlear Corporation). Subjects: Thirty adults with late-onset deafness and above-average speech perception abilities who used cochlear implants. Main Outcome Measures: Vowel recognition, consonant recognition, sentences in quiet (74, 64, and 54 dB SPL [sound pressure level]) and in noise (+10 and +5 dB SNR [signal-to-noise ratio]), voice discrimination, and melody recognition. Results: Group differences in performance were significant in 4 conditions: vowel identification, difficult sentence material at +5 dB and +10 dB SNR, and a measure that quantified performance in noise and low input levels relative to performance in quiet. Conclusions: We have identified tasks on which there are between-group differences in performance for subjects matched on CNC word scores in quiet. We suspect that the differences in performance are due to differences in signal processing. Our next goal is to uncover the signal processing attributes of the speech processors that are responsible for the differences in performance.

AB - Objective: To determine if subjects who used different cochlear implant devices and who were matched on consonant-vowel-consonant (CNC) identification in quiet would show differences in performance on speech-based tests of spectral and temporal resolution, speech understanding in noise, or speech understanding at low sound levels. Designs: The performance of 15 subjects fit with the CII Bionic Ear System (CII Bionic Ear behind-the-ear speech processor with the Hi-Resolution sound processing strategy; Advanced Bionics Corporation) was compared with the performance of 15 subjects fit with the Nucleus 24 electrode array and ESPrit 3G behind-the-ear speech processor with the Advanced Combination Encoder speech coding strategy (Cochlear Corporation). Subjects: Thirty adults with late-onset deafness and above-average speech perception abilities who used cochlear implants. Main Outcome Measures: Vowel recognition, consonant recognition, sentences in quiet (74, 64, and 54 dB SPL [sound pressure level]) and in noise (+10 and +5 dB SNR [signal-to-noise ratio]), voice discrimination, and melody recognition. Results: Group differences in performance were significant in 4 conditions: vowel identification, difficult sentence material at +5 dB and +10 dB SNR, and a measure that quantified performance in noise and low input levels relative to performance in quiet. Conclusions: We have identified tasks on which there are between-group differences in performance for subjects matched on CNC word scores in quiet. We suspect that the differences in performance are due to differences in signal processing. Our next goal is to uncover the signal processing attributes of the speech processors that are responsible for the differences in performance.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2342664953&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2342664953&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archotol.130.5.624

DO - 10.1001/archotol.130.5.624

M3 - Article

VL - 130

SP - 624

EP - 628

JO - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

JF - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

SN - 2168-6181

IS - 5

ER -