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

References

• Brandt T., Kollmeier B. 2002. Efficient adaptive procedure for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. J Acoust Soc Am, 111(6), 2801–2810.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büchner A., Frohne-Büchner C., Gärtner L., Lesinski-Schiedat A., Battmer R-D. . 2006. Evaluation of Advanced Bionics high resolution mode. Int J Audiol, 45, 407–416.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brill S.M., Schatzer R., Nopp P., Hochmair I., Hochmair E.S. 1998. JCIS: CIS with temporally jittering stimulation pulses: Effect of jittering amplitude and stimulation rate on speech understanding. 4^th European Symposium on Paediatric Cochlear Implantation,'s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Cox R.M., Alexander G.C. 1995. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB). Ear Hear, 16(2), 176–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R.M. 1997. Administration and application of the APHAB. Hearing Journal, 50(4), 32–48.
   Google Scholar
• Friesen L., Shannon R.V., Cruz R.J. 2005. Effects of stimulation rate on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Audiol Neurotol, 10, 169–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu Q.-J., Shannon R.W. 1999. Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by Nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 589–597.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahlbrock K.H. 1957. Sprachaudiometrie. Grundlagen und praktische Anwendung einer Sprachaudiometrie für das deutsche Sprachgebiet. Stuttgart: Thieme.
   Google Scholar
• Hey M., Begall K., Offeciers E., Zarowski A., Hessel H. . 2006. Evaluation of the Nucleus Freedom Performance: Rate, Strategy & Smartsound Preference. XXVIIIth International Congress of Audiology, Innsbruck, Austria; September 3–6, paper L125.
   Google Scholar
• Holden L.K., Skinnner M.W., Holden T., Demorest M.E. 2002. Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. Ear Hear, 23, 463–476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houtgast T., Steeneken H.J.M., Plomp R. 1980. Predicting speech intelligibility in rooms from the modulation transfer function. Acustica, 46, 59–72.
   Google Scholar
• Kiefer J., von Ilberg C., Rupprecht V., Huber-Egener J., Baumgartner W. . 1999. Optimized speech understanding with the CIS-speech coding strategy in cochlear implants. S.B. Waltzman, N. Cohen, Cochlear Implants, New York: Thieme Medical and Scientific.
   Google Scholar
• Killian M.J.P. 1994. Excitability of the Electrically Stimulated Auditory Nerve. Dissertation, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson D.T., Wilson B.S., Zerbi M., Finley C.C. 1996. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Third Quarterly Progress Report, NIH project N01-DC-5-2103, Neural Prosthesis Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Loizou P.C., Poroy O., Dorman M. 2000. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am, 108, 790–820.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKay C.M., Henshall K.R., Hull A.E. 2005. The effect of rate of stimulation on perception of spectral shape by cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am, 118, 386–392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller-Deile J., Morsnowski A., Wesarg T., Laszig R., Zarowski A. . 2006. Performance and preferences for ACE and CIS strategies with the Nucleus Freedom system. 8th European Symposium on Pediatric Cochlear Implantation, Venice, Italy; March 25–28, paper FP220.
   Google Scholar
• Offeciers E., Zarowski A., Laszig R., Wesarg T., Müller-Deile J. . 2006. Nucleus Freedom performance and preferences for ACE and CIS strategies. 9th International Conference on Cochlear Implants, Vienna, Austria; June 14–17, paper Z1-O5.
   Google Scholar
• Patrick J.F., Busby P.A., Gibson P.J. 2006. The development of the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear implant system. Trends Amplif, 10, 175–200.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pelizzone M., Tinembart J., Francois J., Steger D., Boex C. . 1998. Very-high stimulation rates for cochlear implants. 4th European Symposium on Paediatric Cochlear Implantation,'s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Plant K.L., Whitford L.A., Psarros C.E., Vandali A.E. 2002. Parametric selection and programming recommendations for the ACE and CIS speech-processing strategies in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Cochlear Implants Int, 3, 104–125.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plant K., Holden L., Skinnner M., Arcaroli J., Whitford L. . 2007. Clinical evaluation of higher stimulus rates in the Nucleus Research Platform 8 system. Ear Hear, 28, 381–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose J.E., Brugge J.F., Anderson D.J., Hind J.E. 1967. Phase-locked responses to low-frequency tones in single auditory nerve fibers of the squirrel monkey. J Neurophysiol, 30, 769–793.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubinstein J.T., Wilson B.S., Finley C.C., Abbas P.J. 1999. Pseudospontaneous activity: Stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hear Res, 127, 108–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandali A.E., Whitford L.A., Plant K.L., Clark G.M. 2000. Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: Using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear, 21, 608–624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Tasel D.J., Greenfield D.G., Logemann J.J., Nelson D.A. 1992. Temporal cues for consonant recognition: Training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 92, 1247–1257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Wijngaarden S.J., Houtgast T. 2004. Effect of talker and speaking style on the speech transmission index. J Acoust Soc Am, 115, 38–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verschuur C.A. 2005. Effect of stimulation rate on speech perception in adult users of the Med-El CIS speech processing strategy. Int J Audiol, 44, 58–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber B.P., Lai W.K., Dillier N., von Wallenberg E.L., Killian M.J.P. . 2007. Performance and preference for ACE stimulation rates obtained with Nucleus RP 8 and Freedom system. Ear Hear, 28, 46S–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wesarg T., Battmer R-D., Cavallé Garrido L., Dillier N., Garcia-Ibanez L., Hey M. . 2010. Effect of changing pulse rate on profile parameters of perceptual thresholds and loudness comfort levels and relation to ECAP thresholds in recipients of the Nucleus CI24RE device. Int J Audiol, in press
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar