Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: Using the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system
Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: Using the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00003446-200012000-00008
复制
发表时间：
2000-12-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Clarke, GM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Vandali, AE;Whitford, LA;Clarke, GM
目的：研究在保持刺激通道数量不变的情况下，不同电刺激速率对人工耳蜗植入者言语理解的影响。设计：电刺激的三个平均速率，每通道每秒250、807和1615个脉冲（pps/ch），使用与频谱最大声音处理器策略中使用的电极选择技术类似的语音处理策略进行比较（McDermott，McKay，& Vandali，1992; McDermott & Vandali，参考注释1; McKay，McDermott，Vandali，& Clark，1991）和谱峰策略（Skinner等人，1994; Whitford等人，1995年）。在21周的时间内，对Nucleus 24人工耳蜗系统的5名用户进行了言语感知测试。向受试者提供每种速率条件下的带回家经验。采用交替顺序的重复ABC评估协议，以考虑学习效应并最小化顺序效应。开放式单音节词在安静的感知：和开放式句子的信噪比范围从+20到0 dB，这取决于受试者的能力，进行了测试，一个比较性能问卷也administered.Results：没有统计学差异，在组性能之间的250和807 PPS/CH率观察到在任何的言语感知测试。然而，在某些测试中，观察到1615 pps/ch速率的组性能显著较差，主要是由于一名受试者的结果。个体分数分析显示，受试者之间存在相当大的差异。对于某些受试者，三种速率条件中的一种或多种在某些言语感知任务上提供了益处。比较性能问卷的结果表明，在大多数听力情况下，250和807 pps/ch的频率比1615 pps/ch的频率更受欢迎。对于本研究中评估的语音处理策略、植入系统和受试者，该组结果表明，使用高于250 pps/ch（高达1615 pps/ch）的电刺激速率通常对言语理解没有显著改善。然而，个别结果表明，感知的好处，可以通过调整刺激率最佳，以适应每个主题。来自一个受试者的结果，以及来自另一个受试者的由高速率刺激引起的耳鸣问题，表明高速率刺激实际上可能对某些受试者是不期望的。
Objective: To investigate the effect of varying electrical stimulation rate on speech comprehension by cochlear implant users, while keeping the number of stimulated channels constant.Design: Three average rates of electrical stimulation, 250, 807, and 1615 pulses per second per channel (pps/ch), were compared using a speech processing strategy that employed an electrode selection technique similar to that used in the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor strategy (McDermott, McKay, & Vandali, 1992; McDermott & Vandali, Reference Note 1; McKay, McDermott, Vandali, & Clark, 1991) and the Spectral Peak strategy (Skinner et al., 1994; Whitford et al., 1995). Speech perception tests with five users of the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system were conducted over a 21-wk period. Subjects were given take-home experience with each rate condition. A repeated ABC evaluation protocol with alternating order was employed so as to account for learning effects and to minimize order effects. Perception of open-set monosyllabic words in quiet: and open-set sentences at signal to noise ratios ranging from +20 to 0 dB, depending on the subject's ability, were tested, A comparative performance questionnaire was also administered.Results: No statistical differences in group performance between the 250 and 807 pps/ch rates were observed in any of the speech perception tests. However, significantly poorer group performance was observed for the 1615 pps/ch rate for some tests due predominantly to the results of one subject. Analysis of individual scores showed considerable variation across subjects. For some subjects, one or more of the three rate conditions evaluated provided benefits on some speech perception tasks. The results of the comparative performance questionnaire indicated a preference for the 250 and 807 pps/ch rates over the 1615 pps/ch rate for most listening situations.Conclusions: For the speech processing strategy, implant system, and subjects evaluated in this study, the group results indicated that the use of electrical stimulation rates higher than 250 pps/ch (up do 1615 pps/ch) generally provided no significant improvement to speech comprehension. However, individual results indicated that perceptual benefits could be obtained by adjusting rate of stimulation optimally to suit each subject. Results from one subject, together with tinnitus problems arising from high-rate stimulation for another subject, indicated that high rates of stimulation may in fact be undesirable for some subjects.