A systematic review of the impact of adjusting input dynamic range (IDR), electrical threshold (T) level and rate of stimulation on speech perception ability in cochlear implant users

References

• Arora, K., A. Vandali, R. Dowell, and P. Dawson. 2011. “Effects of Stimulation Rate on Modulation Detection and Speech Recognition by Cochlear Implant Users.” International Journal of Audiology 50 (2): 123–132. doi:10.3109/14992027.2010.527860.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balkany, T., A. Hodges, C. Menapace, L. Hazard, C. Driscoll, B. Gantz, D. Kelsall, et al. 2007. “Nucleus Freedom North American Clinical Trial.” Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 136 (5): 757–762. doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2007.01.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battmer, R. D., N. Dillier, W. K. Lai, K. Begall, E. E. Leypon, J. C. Gonzalez, M. Manrique, et al. 2010. “Speech Perception Performance as a Function of Stimulus Pulse Rate and Processing Strategy Preference for the Cochlear Nucleus CI24RE Device: Relation to Perceptual Threshold and Loudness Comfort Profiles.” International Journal of Audiology 49 (9): 657–666. doi:10.3109/14992021003801471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baudhuin, J., J. Cadieux, J. B. Firszt, R. M. Reeder, and J. L. Maxson. 2012. “Optimization of Programming Parameters in Children with the Advanced Bionics Cochlear Implant.” Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 23 (5): 302–312. doi:10.3766/jaaa.23.5.2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bierer, J. A., and K. F. Faulkner. 2010. “Identifying Cochlear Implant Channels with Poor Electrode-neuron Interface: Partial Tripolar, single-channel Thresholds and Psychophysical Tuning Curves.” Ear & Hearing 31 (2): 247–258. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181c7daf4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blamey, P., F. Artieres, D. Başkent, F. Bergeron, A. Beynon, E. Burke, N. Dillier, et al. 2013. “Factors Affecting Auditory Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: An Update with 2251 Patients.” Audiology and Neurotology 18 (1): 36–47. doi:10.1159/000343189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonnet, R. M., P. B. M. Boermans, O. F. Avenarius, J. J. Briaire, and J. H. Frijns. 2012. “Effects of Pulse Width, pulse Rate and Paired Electrode Stimulation on Psychophysical Measures of Dynamic Range and Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implants.” Ear & Hearing 33 (4): 489–496. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31824c761a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd, P. J. 2006. “Effects of Programming Threshold and Maplaw Settings on Acoustic Thresholds and Speech Discrimination with the Med-el Combi 40+ cochlear Implant.” Ear & Hearing 27 (6): 608–618. doi:10.1097/01.aud.0000245815.07623.db.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyle, P. J., T. B. Nunn, A. F. O'Connor, and B. C. J. Moore. 2013. “STARR: A Speech Test for Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Auditory Prostheses under Realistic Conditions.” Ear & Hearing 34 (2): 203–212. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31826a8e82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buechner, A., C. Frohne-Buchner, L. Gaertner, T. Stoever, R. D. Battmer, and T. Lenarz. 2010. “The Advanced Bionics High Resolution Mode: Stimulation Rates up to 5000 pps.” Acta Oto-Laryngologica 130 (1): 114–123. doi:10.3109/00016480902971239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2009. Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Healthcare. New York: University of York.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, L. S., M. W. Skinner, B. A. Holstad, B. T. Fears, M. K. Richter, M. Matusofsky, C. Brenner, et al. 2009. “The Effect of Instantaneous Input Dynamic Range Setting on the Speech Perception of Children with the Nucleus 24 Implant.” Ear & Hearing 30 (3): 340–349. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31819ec93a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson, P. W., A. E. Vandali, M. R. Knight, and J. M. Heasman. 2007. “Clinical Evaluation of Expanded Input Dynamic Range in Nucleus Cochlear Implants.” Ear & Hearing 28 (2): 163–176. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3180312651.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Lella, F., A. Bacciu, E. Pasanisi, V. Vincenti, M. Guida, and S. Bacciu. 2010. “Main Peak Interleaved Sampling (MPIS) strategy: Effect of Stimulation Rate Variations on Speech Perception in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients Using the Digisonic SP Cochlear Implant.” Acta Oto Laryngologica 130 (1): 102–107. doi:10.3109/00016480902896113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaldson, G. S., T. H. Chisolm, G. P. Blasco, L. J. Shinnick, K. J. Ketter, and J. C. Krause. 2009. “BKB-SIN and ANL Predict Perceived Communication Ability in Cochlear Implant Users.” Ear & Hearing 30 (4): 401–410. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181a16379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friesen, L. M., R. V. Shannon, and R. J. Cruz. 2005. “Effects of Stimulation Rate on Speech Recognition with Cochlear Implants.” Audiology &Amp; Neuro-Otology 10 (3): 169–184. doi:10.1159/000084027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu, Q. J., and R. V. Shannon. 2000. “Effects of Dynamic Range and Amplitude Mapping on Phoneme Recognition in Nucleus-22 Cochlear Implant Users.” Ear and Hearing 21 (3): 227–235. doi:10.1097/00003446-200006000-00006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gifford, R. H., A. P. Olund, and M. Dejong. 2011. “Improving Speech Perception in Noise for Children with Cochlear Implants.” Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 22 (9): 623–632. doi:10.3766/jaaa.22.9.7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gifford, R. H., and L. J. Revit. 2010. “Speech Perception for Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients in a Realistic Background Noise: Effectiveness of Preprocessing Strategies and External Options for Improving Speech Recognition in Noise.” Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 21 (7): 441–451. quiz 87-8. doi:10.3766/jaaa.21.7.3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holden, L. K., R. M. Reeder, J. B. Firszt, and C. C. Finley. 2011. “Optimizing the Perception of Soft Speech and Speech in Noise with the Advanced Bionics Cochlear Implant System.” International Journal of Audiology 50 (4): 255–269. doi:10.3109/14992027.2010.533200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holden, L. K., M. W. Skinner, M. S. Fourakis, and T. A. Holden. 2007. “Effect of Increased IIDR in the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear Implant System.” Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 18 (9): 777–793. doi:10.3766/jaaa.18.9.6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holden, L. K., M. W. Skinner, T. A. Holden, and M. E. Demorest. 2002. “Effects of Stimulation Rate with the Nucleus 24 Ace Speech Coding Strategy.” Ear and Hearing 23 (5): 463–476. doi:10.1097/00003446-200210000-00008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howick, J., I. Chalmers, P. Glasziou, T. Greenhalgh, C. Heneghan, A. Liberati, I. Moschetti, B. Phillips, and H. Thornton. 2011. The 2011 Oxford CEBM Evidence Levels of Evidence (Introductory Document). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653.
   Google Scholar
• James, C. J., M. W. Skinner, L. F. Martin, L. K. Holden, K. L. Galvin, T. A. Holden, and L. Whitford. 2003. “An Investigation of Input Level Range for the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System: Speech Perception Performance, program Preference, and Loudness Comfort Ratings.” Ear & Hearing 24 (2): 157–174. doi:10.1097/01.AUD.0000058107.64929.D6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiefer, J., C. Von Ilberg, V. Rupprecht, J. Hubner-Egner, and R. Knecht. 2000. “Optimized Speech Understanding with the Continuous Interleaved Sampling Speech Coding Strategy in Patients with Cochlear Implants: Effect of Variations in Stimulation Rate and Number of Channels.” Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology 109 (11): 1009–1020. doi:10.1177/000348940010901105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loizou, P. C., O. Poroy, and M. Dorman. 2000. “The Effect of Parametric Variations of Cochlear Implant Processors on Speech Understanding.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108 (2): 790–802. doi:10.1121/1.429612.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nie, K., A. Barco, and F. G. Zeng. 2006. “Spectral and Temporal Cues in Cochlear Implant Speech Perception.” Ear and Hearing 27 (2): 208–217. doi:10.1097/01.aud.0000202312.31837.25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble, J. H., A. J. Hedley-Williams, L. Sunderhaus, B. M. Dawant, R. F. Labadie, S. M. Camarata, and R. H. Gifford. 2016. “Initial Results with Image-guided Cochlear Implant Programming in Children.” Otology and Neurotology 37 (2): e63–e69. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000909.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, S. H., E. Kim, H. J. Lee, and H. J. Kim. 2012. “Effects of Electrical Stimulation Rate on Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users.” Korean Journal of Audiology 16 (1): 6–9. doi:10.7874/kja.2012.16.1.6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plant, K., L. Holden, M. Skinner, J. Arcaroli, L. Whitford, M. A. Law, and E. Nel. 2007. “Clinical Evaluation of Higher Stimulation Rates in the Nucleus Research Platform 8 System.” Ear & Hearing 28 (3): 381–393. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31804793ac.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plant, K. L., L. A. Whitford, C. E. Psarros, and A. E. Vandali. 2002. “Parameter Selection and Programming Recommendations for the ACE and CIS Speech-processing Strategies in the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System.” Cochlear Implants International 3 (2): 104–125. doi:10.1179/cim.2002.3.2.104.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shannon, R. V., R. J. Cruz, and J. J. Galvin. 3rd. 2011. “Effect of Stimulation Rate on Cochlear Implant Users' Phoneme, word and Sentence Recognition in Quiet and in Noise.” Audiology and Neurotology 16 (2): 113–123. doi:10.1159/000315115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner, M. W., L. K. Holden, T. A. Holden, and M. E. Demorest. 1999. “Comparison of Two Methods for Selecting Minimum Stimulation Levels Used in Programming the Nucleus 22 Cochlear Implant.” Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 42 (4): 814–828. doi:10.1044/jslhr.4204.814.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spahr, A. J., and M. F. Dorman. 2005. “Effects of Minimum Stimulation Settings for the Med-El Tempo + speech Processor on Speech Understanding.” Ear & Hearing 26 (4): 2S–6S. doi:10.1097/00003446-200508001-00002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spahr, A. J., M. F. Dorman, and L. H. Loiselle. 2007. “Performance of Patients Using Different Cochlear Implant Systems: Effects of Input Dynamic Range.” Ear & Hearing 28 (2): 260–275. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3180312607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svirsky, M. A., T. M. Talavage, S. Sinha, H. Neuburger, and M. Azadpour. 2015. “Gradual Adaptation to Auditory Frequency Mismatch.” Hearing Research 322: 163–170. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2014.10.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanamati, L. F., L. T. Do Nascimento, and M. C. Bevilacqua. 2005. “Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users: Two Programming Situations.” Profo 17 (1): 19–26.
   Google Scholar
• Vaerenberg, B., C. Smits, G. De Ceulaer, E. Zir, S. Harman, N. Jaspers, Y. Tam, et al. 2014. “Cochlear Implant Programming: A Global Survey on the State of the Art.” The Scientific World Journal 2014: 501738. doi:10.1155/2014/501738.
   Google Scholar
• Valente, C., H. B. Abrams, D. Benson, T. H. Chisholm, D. Citron, and D. Hampton. 2006. “Guidelines in the Audiological Management of Adult Hearing Impairment.” Audiology Today 18: 32–36.
   Google Scholar
• Vandali, A. E., L. A. Whitford, K. L. Plant, and G. M. Clark. 2000. “Speech Perception as a Function of Electrical Stimulation Rate: Using the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System.” Ear & Hearing 21 (6): 608–624. doi:10.1097/00003446-200012000-00008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veekmans, K., J. Honeyman, M. Daft, K. Hawker, S. Johnson, and T. Twomey. 2010. “The Influence of Increasing the Instantaneous Input Dynamic Range in Paediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients.” Cochlear Implants International 11 (1): 473–478. doi:10.1179/146701010X12671177204705.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verschuur, C. A. 2005. “Effect of Stimulation Rate on Speech Perception in Adult Users of the Med-el Cis Speech Processing Strategy.” International Journal of Audiology 44 (1): 58–63. doi:10.1080/14992020400022488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng, F. G., G. Grant, J. Niparko, J. Galvin, R. Shannon, J. Opie, and P. Segel. 2002. “Speech Dynamic Range and Its Effect on Cochlear Implant Performance.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111 (1): 377–386. doi:10.1121/1.1423926.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, N. 2017. “Deactivating Stimulation Sites Based on Low-rate Thresholds Improves Spectral Ripple and Speech Reception Thresholds in Cochlear Implant Users.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 141 (3): EL243. doi:10.1121/1.4977235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, N., and B. E. Pfingst. 2014. “Effects of Site-specific Level Adjustments on Speech Recognition with Cochlear Implants.” Ear and Hearing 35 (1): 30–40. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31829d15cc.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar