Comparison of the fine structure processing (FSP) strategy and the CIS strategy used in the MED-EL cochlear implant system: Speech intelligibility and music sound quality

References

• Amlani A.M., Rakerd B., Punch J.L. 2006. Speech-clarity judgments of hearing-aid-processed speech in noise: Differing polar patterns and acoustic environments. Int J Audiol, 45, 319–330.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANSI 1997. Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index ANSI S3.5-1997. New York: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Arnoldner C., Riss D., Brunner M., Durisin M., Baumgartner W.D. . 2007. Speech and music perception with the new fine structure speech coding strategy: Preliminary results. Acta Otolaryngol, 127, 1298–1303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne D. 1994. Paired comparison procedures in hearing aid evaluations. Ear Hear, 15, 476–479.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Drennan W.R., Won J.H., Dasika V.K., Rubinstein J.T. 2007. Effects of temporal fine structure on the lateralization of speech and on speech understanding in noise. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 8, 373–383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gfeller K., Christ A., Knutson J.F., Witt S., Murray K.T. . 2000. Musical backgrounds, listening habits, and aesthetic enjoyment of adult cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol, 11, 390–406.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gfeller K., Turner C., Oleson J., Zhang X., Gantz B. . 2007. Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise. Ear Hear, 28, 412–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. 1976. Reliability in the determination of speech discrimination. Scand Audiol, 5, 219–228.
   Google Scholar
• Hällgren M., Larsby B., Arlinger S. 2006. A Swedish version of the Hearing In Noise Test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition. Int J Audiol, 45, 227–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hochmair I., Nopp P., Jolly C., Schmidt M., Schosser H. . 2006. MED-EL Cochlear implants: State of the art and a glimpse into the future. Trends Amplif, 10, 201–219.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huss M., Moore B.C. 2005. Dead regions and pitch perception. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 3841–3852.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiefer J., Hohl S., Sturzebecher E., Pfennigdorff T., Gstoettner W. 2001. Comparison of speech recognition with different speech coding strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and ACE) and their relationship to telemetric measures of compound action potentials in the nucleus CI 24M cochlear implant system. Audiology, 40, 32–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koch D.B., Osberger M.J., Segel P., Kessler D. 2004. HiResolution and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution bionic ear: Using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability. Audiol Neurootol, 9, 214–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kong Y.Y., Cruz R., Jones J.A., Zeng F.G. 2004. Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. Ear Hear, 25, 173–185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassaletta L., Castro A., Bastarrica M., Perez-Mora R., Madero R. . 2007. Does music perception have an impact on quality of life following cochlear implantation? Acta Otolaryngol, 127, 682–686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liden G. 1954. Speech audiometry: An experimental and clinical study with Swedish language material. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl, 114, 1–145.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Looi V. 2008. The effect of cochlear implantation on music perception. Otorinolaringol, 58, 169–190.
   Google Scholar
• Looi V., McDermott H., McKay C., Hickson L. 2007. Comparisons of quality ratings for music by cochlear implant and hearing aid users. Ear Hear, 28, 59S–61S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Looi V., McDermott H., McKay C., Hickson L. 2008. Music perception of cochlear implant users compared with that of hearing aid users. Ear Hear, 29, 421–434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnusson L., Karlsson M., Ringdahl A., Israelsson B. 2001. Comparison of calculated, measured, and self-assessed intelligibility of speech in noise for hearing-aid users. Scand Audiol, 30, 160–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirza S., Douglas S., Lindsey P., Hildreth T., Hawthorne M. 2003. Appreciation of music in adult patients with cochlear implants: A patient questionnaire. Cochlear Implants Int, 4, 85–95.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nie K., Stickney G., Zeng F.G. 2005. Encoding frequency modulation to improve cochlear implant performance in noise. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 52, 64–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riss D., Arnoldner C., Baumgartner W.D., Kaider A., Hamzavi J.S. 2008. A new fine structure speech coding strategy: Speech perception at a reduced number of channels. Otol Neurotol, 29, 784–788.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riss D., Arnoldner C., Reiss S., Baumgartner W.D., Hamzavi J.S. 2009. One-year results using the Opus speech processor with the fine structure speech coding strategy. Acta Otolaryngol, 129, 988–991.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner M.W., Holden L.K., Whitford L.A., Plant K.L., Psarros C. . 2002. Speech recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults. Ear Hear, 23, 207–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stickney G.S., Assmann P.F., Chang J., Zeng F.G. 2007. Effects of cochlear implant processing and fundamental frequency on the intelligibility of competing sentences. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 1069–1078.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stohl J.S., Throckmorton C.S., Collins L.M. 2008. Assessing the pitch structure associated with multiple rates and places for cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 1043–1053.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson B.S., Dorman M.F. 2008. Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future. Hear Res, 242, 3–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson B.S., Finley C.C., Lawson D.T., Wolford R.D., Eddington D.K. . 1991. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature, 352, 236–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu L., Pfingst B.E. 2008. Spectral and temporal cues for speech recognition: Implications for auditory prostheses. Hear Res, 242, 132–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng F.G., Rebscher S., Harrison W., Sun X., Feng H. 2008. Cochlear implants: System design, integration, and evaluation. IEE Rev Biomed Eng, 1, 115–142.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar