You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 130 No. 5, May 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on ISI (16)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Cochlear Implantation
 •Laryngology/ Speech/ Language Pathology
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Performance of Subjects Fit With the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G Cochlear Implant Devices

Anthony J. Spahr, MS; Michael F. Dorman, PhD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:624-628.

Objective  To determine if subjects who used different cochlear implant devices and who were matched on consonant-vowel-consonant (CNC) identification in quiet would show differences in performance on speech-based tests of spectral and temporal resolution, speech understanding in noise, or speech understanding at low sound levels.

Design  The performance of 15 subjects fit with the CII Bionic Ear System (CII Bionic Ear behind-the-ear speech processor with the Hi-Resolution sound processing strategy; Advanced Bionics Corporation) was compared with the performance of 15 subjects fit with the Nucleus 24 electrode array and ESPrit 3G behind-the-ear speech processor with the Advanced Combination Encoder speech coding strategy (Cochlear Corporation).

Subjects  Thirty adults with late-onset deafness and above-average speech perception abilities who used cochlear implants.

Main Outcome Measures  Vowel recognition, consonant recognition, sentences in quiet (74, 64, and 54 dB SPL [sound pressure level]) and in noise (+10 and +5 dB SNR [signal-to-noise ratio]), voice discrimination, and melody recognition.

Results  Group differences in performance were significant in 4 conditions: vowel identification, difficult sentence material at +5 dB and +10 dB SNR, and a measure that quantified performance in noise and low input levels relative to performance in quiet.

Conclusions  We have identified tasks on which there are between-group differences in performance for subjects matched on CNC word scores in quiet. We suspect that the differences in performance are due to differences in signal processing. Our next goal is to uncover the signal processing attributes of the speech processors that are responsible for the differences in performance.


From the Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe. The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.







HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2004 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.