Previous experience as a confounding factor in comparing cochlear-implant processing schemes.
Previous experience as a confounding factor in comparing cochlear-implant processing schemes.
复制标题
以前的经验是比较人工耳蜗处理方案的混杂因素。
DOI：
10.1044/jshr.2902.282
复制
发表时间：
1986
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Gantz,BJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tyler,RS;Preece,JP;Lansing,CR;Otto,SR;Gantz,BJ
比较不同耳蜗植入语音处理策略的优劣具有重要意义。有些小组在单个受试者中比较了不同的策略，但通常受试者先前有使用一种策略的经验，并且没有考虑到这种先前的经验。我们在本研究中表明，这是不合适的。我们使用墨尔本（Cochiar Corp.）多通道植入物，设备设置为以两种不同的方式处理声音。在第一种处理方案中，设备工作正常，提取出了有关浊音频率、振幅和第二共振峰频率的信息。该信息激活21通道器械，分别确定脉率、脉冲幅度和电极位置。在第二处理方案中，激活单个电极（具有最大动态范围）。该电极编码总振幅和发声频率。受试者在4个多月的时间内以/iCi/的形式进行了14选择辅音识别的视听测试。在此期间，受试者在实验室外使用21通道处理器。在最初的连接，有两个方案获得的结果之间的差异不大时，在声音单独或声音加视觉测试。然而，大约4个月后，21通道处理器在声音加视频中获得的分数上级于单通道处理器。这种优势来自于发音和鼻音特征的优势，而不是位置。两种处理方案之间的单独声音条件评分在4个月期间保持相似。调查语音处理系统（包括触觉和传统助听器）相对优点的研究必须将以前的经验作为一个重要因素。
It is of great importance to compare the relative merits of different cochlear-implant speech-processing strategies. Some groups have compared different strategies within single subjects, but usually the subject has prior experience with one strategy, and no allowance is made for this prior experience. We show in the present study that this is inappropriate. We tested one subject using the Melbourne (Cochlear Corp.) multichannel implant with the device set to process sounds in two different ways. In the first processing scheme, the device functioned normally, extracting information about voicing frequency, amplitude and second-formant frequency. This information activated the 21-channel device, determining pulse rate, pulse amplitude and electrode position (respectively). In the second processing scheme, a single electrode (with the largest dynamic range) was activated. This electrode coded overall amplitude and voicing frequency. The subject was tested on an audiovisual test of a 14-choice consonant recognition in the form/iCi/ over a period of over 4 months. During this time the subject used the 21-channel processor outside of the laboratory. Upon initial connection, there was little difference between the results obtained with the two schemes when tested in sound alone or in sound plus vision. However, after about 4 months, scores obtained with the 21-channel processor in sound plus vigion were superior to the scores obtained with the one channel. This advantage came from a superiority in the features of voicing and nasality, but not place. Scores for sound-alone conditions between the two processing schemes remained similar for the 4-month period. Studies investigating the relative merits of speech processing systems (including tactile and conventional hearing aids) must consider previous experience as an important factor.