IJOHNS  Vol.3 No.6 , November 2014
Assessment of Fine Structure Processing Strategies in Unilaterally Deafened Cochlear Implant Users
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to investigate the speech perception and subjective preference of unilaterally deafened cochlear implant users for two different speech coding strategies. Thirteen subjects who received a cochlear implant were provided with 2 maps that differed in the speech coding strategy, FS4 or FS4-p (MED-EL). Subjects were requested to alternate between the two maps daily for two weeks and to complete a questionnaire daily. Speech perception testing was performed using the adaptive Bamford-Kowal-Bench speech-in-noise test (BKB-SIN) after two weeks of alternating FS4/FS4-p use. The subjective benefit of FS4-p was significantly greater than the subjective benefit of FS4 on all five questions of the questionnaire. There was a significant improvement in speech perception scores over time under the S0/N0, S0/NHE, SCI/NHE test conditions. There was no significant difference between the speech perception scores obtained with FS4 and FS4-p coding strategies. For this group of cochlear implant recipients, assessment of the subjective preference for the speech coding strategy is likely to enhance motivation, compliance and consequently, outcomes.

Cite this paper
Távora-Vieira, D. and Rajan, G. (2014) Assessment of Fine Structure Processing Strategies in Unilaterally Deafened Cochlear Implant Users. International Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, 3, 347-353. doi: 10.4236/ijohns.2014.36062.
References
[1]   Wilson, B.S., Finley, C.C., Lawson, D.T., Wolford, R.D., Eddington, D.K. and Rabinowitz, W.M. (1991) Better Speech Recognition with Cochlear Implants. Nature, 352, 236-238.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/352236a0

[2]   Koch, D.B., Osberger, M.J., Segel, P. and Kessler, D.K. (2004) High Resolution and Conventional Sound Processing in the HiResolution Bionic Ear: Using Appropriate Outcome Measures to Assess Speech Recognition Ability. Audiology & Neuro-Otology, 9, 214-223.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000078391

[3]   Kiefer, J., Hohl, S., Sturzebecher, E., Pfennigdorff, T. and 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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00206090109073098

[4]   Zierhofer, C.M. (2003) Electrical Nerve Stimulation Based on Channel Specific Sampling Sequences. US Patent No. 6594525.

[5]   Müller, J., Brill, S., Hagen, R., Moeltner, A., Brockmeier, S.J., Stark, T., Helbig, S., Maurer, J., Zahnert, T., Zierhofer, C., Nopp, P. and Anderson, I. (2012) Clinical Trial Results with the MED-EL Fine Structure Processing Coding Strategy in Experienced Cochlear Implant Users. ORL, 74, 185-198.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000337089

[6]   Moore, B.C. (2008) The Role of Temporal Fine Structure Processing in Pitch Perception, Masking, and Speech Perception for Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired People. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 9, 399-406.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10162-008-0143-x

[7]   Lorens, A., Zgoda, M., Obrycka, A. and Skarzynski, H. (2010) Fine Structure Processing Improves Speech Perception as Well as Objective and Subjective Benefits in Pediatric MED-EL COMBI 40+ Users. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 74, 1372-1378.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.09.005

[8]   Vermiere, K., Punte, A.K. and Van de Heyning, P. (2010) Better Speech Recognition in Noise with Fine Structure Processing Coding Strategy. ORL, 72, 305-311.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000319748

[9]   Arnoldner, C., Riss, D., Brunner, M., Durisin, M., Baumgartner, W.D. and Hamzavi, J.S. (2007) Speech and Music Perception with the New Fine Structure Speech Coding Strategy: Preliminary Results. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 127, 1298-1303.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00016480701275261

[10]   Riss, D., Arnoldner, C., Baumgartner, W.D., Kaider, A. and Hamzavi, J.S. (2008) A New Fine Structure Speech Coding Strategy: Speech Perception at a Reduced Number of Channels. Otology & Neurotology, 29, 784-788.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e31817fe00f

[11]   Riss, D., Hamzavi, J.S., Blineder, M., Honeder, C., Ehrenreich, I., Kaider, A., Baumgartner, W.D., Gstoettner, W. and Arnoldner, C. (2014) FS4, FS4-p and FSP: A 4-Month Crossover Study of Three Fine Structure Sound-Coding Strategies. Ear & Hearing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000063

[12]   Van de Heyning, P., Vermeire, K., Diebl, M., Nopp, P., Anderson, I. and De Ridder, D. (2008) Incapacitating Unilateral Tinnitus in Single-Sided Deafness Treated by Cochlear Implantation. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 117, 645-652.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000348940811700903

[13]   Vermeire, K. and Van de Heyning, P. (2009) Binaural Hearing after Cochlear Implantation in Subjects with Unilateral Sensorineural Deafness and Tinnitus. Audiology & Neuro-Otology, 14, 163-171.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000171478

[14]   Buechner, A., Brendel, M., Lesinski-Schiedat, A., Wenzel, G., Frohne-Buechner, C., Jaeger, B. and Lenarz, T. (2010) Cochlear Implantation in Unilateral Deaf Subjects Associated with Ipsilateral Tinnitus. Otology & Neurotology, 31, 1381-1385.

[15]   Arndt, S., Aschendorff, A., Laszig, R., Beck, R., Schild, C., Kroeger, S., Ihorst, G. and Wesarg, T. (2010) Comparison of Pseudobinaural Hearing to Real Binaural Hearing Rehabilitation after Cochlear Implantation in Patients with Unilateral Deafness and Tinnitus. Otology & Neurotology, 32, 39-47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181fcf271

[16]   Stelzig, Y., Jacob, R. and Mueller, J. (2011) Preliminary Speech Recognition Results after Cochlear Implantation in Patients with Unilateral Hearing Loss: A Case Series. Journal of Medical Case Reports, 5, 343.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1752-1947-5-343

[17]   Firszt, J.B., Holden, L.K., Reeder, R.M., Waltzman, S.B. and Arndt, S. (2012) Auditory Abilities after Cochlear Implantation in Adults with Unilateral Deafness: A Pilot Study. Otology & Neurotology, 33, 1339-1346.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e318268d52d

[18]   Hansen, M.R., Gantz, B.J. and Dunn, C. (2013) Outcomes after Cochlear Implantation for Patients with Single-Sided Deafness, Including Those with Recalcitrant Meniere’s Disease. Otology & Neurotology, 34, 1681-1687.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000102

[19]   Távora-Vieira, D., Marino, R., Krishnaswamy, J., Kuthubutheen, J. and Rajan, G.P. (2013) Cochlear Implantation for Unilateral Deafness with and without Tinnitus: A Case Series. Laryngoscope, 123, 1251-1255.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lary.23764

[20]   Boothroyd, A. (1968) Developments in Speech Audiometry. Sound, 2, 3-10.

[21]   Bench, J., Kowal, A. and Bamford, J. (1979) The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) Sentence Lists for Partially-Hearing Children. British Journal of Audiology, 13, 108-112.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/03005367909078884

[22]   Vlastarakos, P.V., Nazos, K., Tavoulari, E.F. and Nikolopoulos, T.P. (2013) Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness: The Outcomes. An Evidence-Based Approach. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 271, 2119-2126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2746-z

[23]   Schatzer, R., Krenmayr, A., Au, D.K. and Zierhofer, C. (2010) Temporal Fine Structure in Cochlear Implants: Preliminary Speech Perception Results in Cantonese Speaking Implant Users. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 130, 1031-1039.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00016481003591731

 
 
Top