Comparison of Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users with Different Speech Processors

Maria Madalena Canina Pinheiro; Patricia Cotta Mancini; Alexandra Dezani Soares; Ângela Ribas; Danielle Penna Lima; Marcia Cavadas; Marcos Roberto Banhara; Sirley Alves da Silva Carvalho; Byanka Cagnacci Buzo

doi:10.1055/s-0041-1735252

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, Table of Contents

J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(07): 469-476
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735252

Research Article

Comparison of Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users with Different Speech Processors

Authors

Maria Madalena Canina Pinheiro

¹Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil
Patricia Cotta Mancini

²Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Alexandra Dezani Soares

³Centro do Deficiente Auditivo – Hospital São Paulo, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Ângela Ribas

⁴Centro de Implante Coclear do Hospital Pequeno Príncipe, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
Danielle Penna Lima

⁵Centro de Implantes Cocleares do Hospital do Coração de Natal, Natal, Brazil
Marcia Cavadas

⁶Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

⁷Equipe Sonora, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Marcos Roberto Banhara

⁸Centro Especializado de Reabilitação IV do Hospital Santo Antônio/Obras Sociais Irmã Dulce, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
Sirley Alves da Silva Carvalho

²Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Byanka Cagnacci Buzo

⁹Cochlear Latino America, Panama City, Panama

Abstract

Background Speech recognition in noisy environments is a challenge for both cochlear implant (CI) users and device manufacturers. CI manufacturers have been investing in technological innovations for processors and researching strategies to improve signal processing and signal design for better aesthetic acceptance and everyday use.

Purpose This study aimed to compare speech recognition in CI users using off-the-ear (OTE) and behind-the-ear (BTE) processors.

Design A cross-sectional study was conducted with 51 CI recipients, all users of the BTE Nucleus 5 (CP810) sound processor. Speech perception performances were compared in quiet and noisy conditions using the BTE sound processor Nucleus 5 (N5) and OTE sound processor Kanso. Each participant was tested with the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the hearing in noise test using each sound processor in a randomized order. Three test conditions were analyzed with both sound processors: (i) speech level fixed at 65 decibel sound pressure level in a quiet, (ii) speech and noise at fixed levels, and (iii) adaptive speech levels with a fixed noise level. To determine the relative performance of OTE with respect to BTE, paired comparison analyses were performed.

Results The paired t-tests showed no significant difference between the N5 and Kanso in quiet conditions. In all noise conditions, the performance of the OTE (Kanso) sound processor was superior to that of the BTE (N5), regardless of the order in which they were used. With the speech and noise at fixed levels, a significant mean 8.1 percentage point difference was seen between Kanso (78.10%) and N5 (70.7%) in the sentence scores.

Conclusion CI users had a lower signal-to-noise ratio and a higher percentage of sentence recognition with the OTE processor than with the BTE processor.

Keywords

cochlear implants - speech perception - speech recognition

Full Text

References

References
1 Goehring T, Keshavarzi M, Carlyon RP, Moore BCJ. Using recurrent neural networks to improve the perception of speech in non-stationary noise by people with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2019; 146 (01) 705
2 Mauger SJ, Jones M, Nel E, Del Dot J. Clinical outcomes with the Kanso™ off-the-ear cochlear implant sound processor. Int J Audiol 2017; 56 (04) 267-276
3 Wendt D, Hietkamp RK, Lunner T. Impact of noise and noise reduction on processing effort: a pupillometry study. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (06) 690-700
4 Spriet A, Van Deun L, Eftaxiadis K. et al. Speech understanding in background noise with the two-microphone adaptive beamformer BEAM in the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear Implant System. Ear Hear 2007; 28 (01) 62-72
5 Mauger SJ, Warren CD, Knight MR, Goorevich M, Nel E. Clinical evaluation of the Nucleus 6 cochlear implant system: performance improvements with SmartSound iQ. Int J Audiol 2014; 53 (08) 564-576
6 Runge CL, Henion K, Tarima S, Beiter A, Zwolan TA. Clinical outcomes of the Cochlear™ Nucleus(®) 5 Cochlear Implant System and SmartSound™ 2 Signal Processing. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (06) 425-440
7 Wolfe J, Parkinson A, Schafer EC. et al. Benefit of a commercially available cochlear implant processor with dual-microphone beamforming: a multi-center study. Otol Neurotol 2012; 33 (04) 553-560
8 Hersbach AA, Arora K, Mauger SJ, Dawson PW. Combining directional microphone and single-channel noise reduction algorithms: a clinical evaluation in difficult listening conditions with cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (04) e13-e23
9 Wolfe J, Neumann S, Marsh M. et al. Benefits of adaptive signal processing in a commercially available cochlear implant sound processor. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36 (07) 1181-1190
10 Dawson PW, Mauger SJ, Hersbach AA. Clinical evaluation of signal-to-noise ratio-based noise reduction in Nucleus® cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (03) 382-390
11 Chung K. Wind noise in hearing aids: I. Effect of wide dynamic range compression and modulation-based noise reduction. Int J Audiol 2012; 51 (01) 16-28
12 Chung K, Zeng FG. Using hearing aid adaptive directional microphones to enhance cochlear implant performance. Hear Res 2009; 250 (1-2): 27-37
13 Chung K. Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids. Part I. Speech understanding in noise, microphone technologies and noise reduction algorithms. Trends Amplif 2004; 8 (03) 83-124
14 Goorevich M, Zakis JA, Case S. et al. 2012 Effect of a wind noise reduction algorithm on cochlear implant sound processing, 12th International Conference on Cochlear Implants and other Implantable Technologies. Baltimore, Maryland, USA
15 De Ceulaer G, Swinnen F, Pascoal D. et al. Conversion of adult Nucleus® 5 cochlear implant users to the Nucleus® 6 system. Cochlear Implants Int 2015; 16 (04) 222-232
16 Mertens G, Hofkens A, Punte AK, De Bodt M, Van de Heyning P. Hearing performance in single-sided deaf cochlear implant users after upgrade to a single-unit speech processor. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36 (01) 51-60
17 Wimmer W, Caversaccio M, Kompis M. Speech intelligibility in noise with a single-unit cochlear implant audio processor. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36 (07) 1197-1202
18 Plasmans A, Rushbrooke E, Moran M. et al. A multicentre clinical evaluation of paediatric cochlear implant users upgrading to the Nucleus(®) 6 system. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 83: 193-199
19 Todorov MJ, Galvin KL. Benefits of upgrading to the Nucleus^® 6 sound processor for a wider clinical population. Cochlear Implants Int 2018; 19 (04) 210-215
20 Távora-Vieira D, Miller S. 2015 The Benefits of Using RONDO and an In-the-Ear Hearing Aid in Patients Using a Combined Electric-Acoustic System. Advances in Otolaryngology [cited 2020 Apr 20]. Accessed May 19, 2021 from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/941230
21 Bevilacqua MC, Banhara MR, Da Costa EA, Vignoly AB, Alvarenga KF. The Brazilian Portuguese hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol 2008; 47 (06) 364-365
22 Wesarg T, Voss B, Hassepass F. et al. Speech Perception in quiet and noise with an off the ear CI processor enabling adaptive microphone directionality. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39 (04) e240-e249
23 Balkany T, Hodges A, Menapace C. et al. Nucleus Freedom North American clinical trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007; 136 (05) 757-762
24 Cullington HE, Zeng FG. Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 123 (01) 450-461
25 Dorman MF, Gifford RH, Spahr AJ, McKarns SA. The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies. Audiol Neurotol 2008; 13 (02) 105-112
26 Wolfe J, Schafer EC, Heldner B, Mülder H, Ward E, Vincent B. Evaluation of speech recognition in noise with cochlear implants and dynamic FM. J Am Acad Audiol 2009; 20 (07) 409-421
27 Poissant SF, Bero EM, Busekroos L, Shao W. Determining cochlear implant users' true noise tolerance: use of speech reception threshold in noise testing. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35 (03) 414-420
28 Rubinstein JT, Parkinson WS, Tyler RS, Gantz BJ. Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. Am J Otol 1999; 20 (04) 445-452
29 Shpak T, Most T, Luntz M. Fundamental frequency information for speech recognition via bimodal stimulation: cochlear implant in one ear and hearing aid in the other. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (01) 97-109
30 Firestone GM, McGuire K, Liang C. et al. A preliminary study of the effects of attentive music listening on cochlear implant users' speech perception, quality of life, and behavioral and objective measures of frequency change detection. Front Hum Neurosci 2020; 14: 110
31 Green KM, Bhatt Y, Mawman DJ. et al. Predictors of audiological outcome following cochlear implantation in adults. Cochlear Implants Int 2007; 8 (01) 1-11
32 Zwolan TA, Henion K, Segel P, Runge C. The role of age on cochlear implant performance, use, and health utility: a multicenter clinical trial. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35 (09) 1560-1568
33 Litovsky RY, Parkinson A, Arcaroli J. Spatial hearing and speech intelligibility in bilateral cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2009; 30 (04) 419-431
34 Mosnier I, Sterkers O, Bebear JP. et al. Speech performance and sound localization in a complex noisy environment in bilaterally implanted adult patients. Audiol Neurotol 2009; 14 (02) 106-114
35 Yoon YS, Li Y, Kang HY, Fu QJ. The relationship between binaural benefit and difference in unilateral speech recognition performance for bilateral cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol 2011; 50 (08) 554-565
36 Sladen DP, Gifford RH, Haynes D. et al. Evaluation of a revised indication for determining adult cochlear implant candidacy. Laryngoscope 2017; 127 (10) 2368-2374
37 Litovsky R, Parkinson A, Arcaroli J, Sammeth C. Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a multicenter clinical study. Ear Hear 2006; 27 (06) 714-731
38 Gifford RH, Shallop JK, Peterson AM. Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol Neurotol 2008; 13 (03) 193-205