Biomedical subjects

Timothy A Holden

Publications and source records attributed to Timothy A Holden.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Speech recognition with the advanced combination encoder and transient emphasis spectral maxima strategies in nucleus 24 recipients.

One of the difficulties faced by cochlear implant (CI) recipients is perception of low-intensity speech cues. A. E. Vandali (2001) has developed the transient emphasis spectral maxima (TESM) strategy to amplify short-duration, low-level sounds. The aim of the present study was to determine whether speech scores would be significantly higher with TESM than with the advanced combination encoder (ACE) strategy fitted using procedures that optimize perception of soft speech and other sounds. Eight adult recipients of the Nucleus 24 CI system participated in this study. No significant differences in scores were seen between ACE and TESM for consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant (CNC) words presented at 55 and 65 dB SPL, for sentences in noise presented at 65 dB SPL at 2 different signal-to-noise ratios, or for closed-set vowels and consonants presented at 60 dB SPL. However, perception of stop consonants within CNC words presented at the lower level (55 dB SPL) was significantly higher with TESM than ACE. In addition, percentage of information transmitted for words at 55 dB SPL was significantly higher with TESM than with ACE for manner and voicing features for consonants in the initial word position. Analysis of closed-set consonants presented at 60 dB SPL revealed percentage of information transmitted for manner was significantly higher with TESM than with ACE. These improvements with TESM were small compared with those reported by Vandali for recipients of the Nucleus 22 CI system. It appears that mapping techniques used to program speech processors and improved processing capabilities of the Nucleus 24 system contributed to soft sounds being understood almost as well with ACE as with TESM. However, half of the participants preferred TESM to ACE for use in everyday life, and all but 1 used TESM in specific listening situations. Clinically, TESM may be useful to ensure the audibility of low-intensity, short-duration acoustic cues that are important for understanding speech, for recipients who are difficult to map, or if insufficient time precludes the use of mapping techniques to increase audibility of soft sound.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Effect of frequency boundary assignment on vowel recognition with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy.

Two speech processor programs (MAPs) differing only in electrode frequency boundary assignments were created for each of eight Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant recipients. The default MAPs used typical frequency boundaries, and the experimental MAPs reassigned one additional electrode to vowel formant regions. Four objective speech tests and a questionnaire were used to evaluate speech recognition with the two MAPs. Results for the closed-set vowel test and the formant discrimination test showed small but significant improvement in scores with the experimental MAP. Differences for the Consonant-Vowel Nucleus-Consonant word test and closed-set consonant test were nonsignificant. Feature analysis revealed no significant differences in information transmission. Seven of the eight subjects preferred the experimental MAP, reporting louder, crisper, and clearer sound. The results suggest that Nucleus 24 recipients should be given an opportunity to compare a MAP that assigns more electrodes in vowel formant regions with the default MAP to determine which provides the most benefit in everyday life.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.

OBJECTIVE: Cochlear implant recipients often have limited access to lower level speech sounds. In this study we evaluated the effects of varying the input range characteristics of the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system on recognition of vowels, consonants, and sentences in noise and on listening in everyday life. DESIGN: Twelve subjects participated in the study that was divided into two parts. In Part 1 subjects used speech processor (Nucleus 24 SPrint trade mark ) programs adjusted for three input sensitivity settings: a standard or default microphone sensitivity setting (MS 8), a setting that increased the input sensitivity by 10.5 dB (MS 15), and the same setting that increased input sensitivity but also incorporated the automatic sensitivity control (ASC; i.e., MS 15A) that is designed to reduce the loudness of noise. The default instantaneous input dynamic range (IIDR) of 30 dB was used in these programs (i.e., base level of 4; BL 4). Subjects were tested using each sensitivity program with vowels and consonants presented at very low to casual conversational levels of 40 dB SPL and 55 dB SPL, respectively. They were also tested with sentences presented at a raised level of 65 dB SPL in multi-talker babble at individually determined signal to noise ratios. In addition, subjects were given experience outside of the laboratory for several weeks. They were asked to complete a questionnaire where they compared the programs in different listening situations as well as the loudness of environmental sounds, and state the setting they preferred overall. In Part 2 of the study, subjects used two programs. The first program was their preferred sensitivity program from Part 1 that had an IIDR of 30 dB (BL 4). Seven subjects used MS 8 and four used MS 15, and one used the noise reduction program MS 15A. The second program used the same microphone sensitivity but had the IIDR extended by an additional 8 to 10 dB (BL 1/0). These two programs were evaluated similarly in the speech laboratory and with take-home experience as in Part 1. RESULTS PART 1: Increasing the microphone input sensitivity by 10.5 dB (from MS 8 to MS 15) significantly improved the perception of vowels and consonants at 40 and 55 dB SPL. The group mean improvement in vowel scores was 25 percentage points at 40 dB SPL and 4 percentage points at 55 dB SPL. The group mean improvement for consonants was 23 percentage points at 40 dB SPL and 11 percentage points at 55 dB SPL. Increased input sensitivity did not significantly reduce the perception of sentences presented at 65 dB SPL in babble despite the fact that speech peaks were then within the compressed range above the SPrint processor's automatic gain control (AGC) knee-point. Although there was a demonstrable advantage for perception of low-level speech with the higher input sensitivity (MS 15 and 15A), seven of the 12 subjects preferred MS 8, four preferred MS 15 or 15A, and one had no preference overall. Approximately half the subjects preferred MS 8 across the 18 listening situations, whereas an average of two subjects preferred MS 15 or 15A. The increased microphone sensitivity of MS 15 substantially increased the loudness of environmental sounds. However, use of the ASC noise reduction setting with MS 15 reduced the loudness of environmental sounds to equal or below that for MS 8. RESULTS PART 2: The increased instantaneous input range gave some improvement (8 to 9 percentage points for the 40 dB SPL presentation level) in the perception of consonants. There was no statistically significant increase in vowel scores. Mean scores for sentences presented at 65 dB SPL in babble were significantly lower (5 percentage points) for the increased IIDR setting. Subjects had no preference for the increased IIDR over the default. The IIDR setting had no effect on the loudness of environmental sounds. CONCLUSIONS: Given the fact that individuals differ in threshold (T) and comfort (C) levels for electrical stimulation, and preferred microphone sensitivity, volume control, and noise-reduction settings, it is essential for the clinicid recipient to determine what combination is best for the individual over several sessions. The results of this study clearly show the advantage of using higher microphone sensitivity settings than the default MS 8 to provide better speech recognition for low-level stimuli. However, it was also necessary to adjust other parameters such as map C levels, automatic sensitivity control and base level, to optimize loudness comfort in the diversity of listening situations an individual encounters in everyday life.

Auditory Threshold↗

PubMed2002

Speech recognition with the nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether 1) the SPEAK, ACE or CIS speech coding strategy was associated with significantly better speech recognition for individual subjects implanted with the Nucleus CI24M internal device who used the SPrint speech processor, and 2) whether a subject's preferred strategy for use in everyday life provided the best speech recognition. DESIGN: Twelve postlinguistically deaf, newly implanted adults participated. Initial preference for the three strategies was obtained with paired-comparison testing on the first day of implant stimulation with seven of eight U.S. subjects. During the first 12 wk, all subjects used each strategy alone for 4 wk to give them experience with the strategy and to identify preferred speech processor program parameters and settings that would be used in subsequent testing. For the next 6 wk, subjects used one strategy at a time for 2-wk intervals in the same order they had for the first 12 wk. At the end of each 2-wk interval, speech recognition testing was conducted with all three strategies. At the end of the 6 wk, all three strategies were placed on each subject's processor, and subjects were asked to compare listening with these three programs in as many situations as possible for the next 2 wk. When they returned, subjects responded to a questionnaire asking about their preferred strategy and responded to two lists of medial consonants using each of the three strategies. The U.S. subjects also responded to two lists of medial vowels with the three strategies. RESULTS: Six of the 12 subjects in the present study had significantly higher CUNY sentence scores with the ACE strategy than with one or both of the other strategies; one of the 12 subjects had a significantly higher score with SPEAK than with ACE. In contrast, only two subjects had significantly higher CNC word and phoneme scores with one or two strategies than with the third strategy. One subject had a significantly higher vowel score with the SPEAK strategy than with the CIS strategy; and no subjects had significantly higher consonant scores with any strategy. Seven of 12 subjects preferred the ACE strategy, three preferred the SPEAK strategy, and two preferred the CIS strategy. Subjects' responses on a questionnaire agreed closely with strategy preference from comparisons made in everyday life. There was a strong relation between the preferred strategy and scores on CUNY sentences but not for the other speech tests. For all subjects, except one, the preferred strategy was the one with the highest CUNY sentence score or was a strategy with a CUNY score not significantly lower than the highest score. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in research design, there was remarkably close agreement in the pattern of group mean scores for the three strategies for CNC words and CUNY sentences in noise between the present study and the Conversion study (Arndt, Staller, Arcaroli, Hines, & Ebinger, Reference Note 1). In addition, essentially the same percentage of subjects preferred each strategy. For both studies, the strategy with which subjects had the highest score on the CUNY sentences in noise evaluation was strongly related to the preferred strategy; this relation was not strong for CNC words, CNC phonemes, vowels or consonants (Skinner, Arndt, & Staller, 2002). These results must be considered within the following context. For each strategy, programming parameters preferred for use in everyday life were determined before speech recognition was evaluated. In addition, implant recipients had experience listening with all three strategies in many situations in everyday life before choosing a preferred strategy. Finally, 11 of the 12 subjects strongly preferred one of the three strategies. Given the results and research design, it is recommended that clinicians fit each strategy sequentially starting with the ACE strategy so that the preferred programming parameters are determined for each strategy before recipients compare pairs of strategies. The goal is to provide the best opportunity for individuals to hear in everyday life within a clinically acceptable time period (e.g., 6 wk).

Acoustic Stimulation↗

PubMed2002

Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to determine whether individual cochlear implant recipients recognize speech better with an electrical stimulation rate of 720 or 1800 pulses per second per channel (pps/ch) using the Nucleus 24 Advanced Combination Encoder (ACE) speech coding strategy. The secondary objective was to determine, for each active electrode, the relation between psychophysical measures and MAP minimum and maximum stimulation levels for each rate, as well as the stability of MAP minimum and maximum levels during the study. DESIGN: Eight postlinguistically deaf adults implanted with the Nucleus 24 device participated in this study comparing the effect of a moderate (720 pps/ch) and a fast (1800 pps/ch) rate of electrical stimulation on speech recognition of words in quiet and sentences in noise presented at 50, 60, and 70 dB SPL in the laboratory and on listening to sound in everyday life over a 14-wk time period. At the beginning of the study, psychophysical measures (i.e., counted threshold and maximum acceptable loudness [MAL] levels) were obtained for each active electrode with each of the two rates to initially set MAP minimum and maximum stimulation levels. These levels were then adjusted to make speech and environmental sound clear and comfortable in everyday life. Threshold and MAL levels were obtained again half way through the study to monitor possible hearing changes. A four-phase test design for evaluation of speech recognition was followed; an equal number of subjects started with each of the two rates and alternated rates for each phase. In the last 2 wk of each phase, word and sentence scores were obtained, and subjects responded to a questionnaire. For the group, factorial analyses of variance were conducted for subject, stimulation rate, and time period (first two phases versus second two phases) for words, phonemes within words, and sentences at each level. Additional analyses were obtained for individual subjects. RESULTS: Group mean scores across time periods were significantly higher for 1800 pps/ch than 720 pps/ch for phonemes and sentences in noise at 50 dB SPL. There was no significant difference in scores for phonemes and sentences at 60 and 70 dB SPL or for words at any of the three levels. Group mean scores across stimulation rate were significantly higher during the second half than the first half of the study for words, phonemes, and sentences at 50 dB SPL. This result is consistent with subjects learning to recognize speech cues near threshold. A subject by rate interaction was seen for sentences at 70 dB SPL and for all three speech measures at 50 dB SPL. These interactions reflect the fact that two subjects performed significantly better with 720 pps/ch, whereas two other subjects performed significantly better with 1800 pps/ch. Responses to the questionnaire indicated that two subjects preferred 720 pps/ch, three preferred 1800 pps/ch, and three had no preference. The minimum and/or maximum levels in most subjects' final MAPs differed from the psychophysical measures for both rates. Changes in Current Level at threshold and MAL were minimal from the first to the second half of the study for each rate. CONCLUSIONS: More than half the subjects preferred one of the two rates for use in everyday life, and four subjects performed significantly better with one of the two rates on at least one test measure. These findings underscore the clinical importance of creating MAPs for each implant recipient that include at least a moderate and a fast rate within ACE during the first months of device use. Given the significant learning effects for soft speech that occurred over several weeks use of each rate in this study, it is suggested that each rate be used alone for a week or two before comparing them and deciding which provides more benefit. In addition, adjustments in an individual's MAP minimum and maximum levels are needed at each rate so soft and normal conversational speech as well as loud sound are clear and comfortable in everyday life.

Adult↗