Download PDF
Semin Hear 2007; 28(2): 142-150
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-973440
Copyright © 2007 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Computer-Assisted Speech Training for Cochlear Implant Patients: Feasibility, Outcomes, and Future Directions

Qian-Jie Fu1 , John J. Galvin1  III 
  • 1Department of Auditory Implants and Perception, House Ear Institute, Los Angeles, California
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 April 2007 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Learning electrically stimulated speech patterns can be a new and difficult experience for cochlear implant patients. Cochlear implantation alone may not fully meet the needs of many patients, and additional auditory rehabilitation may be necessary to maximize the benefits of the implanted device. A recently developed computer-assisted speech-training program provides cochlear implant patients with the means to conduct auditory rehabilitation at home. The training software targets important acoustic contrasts between speech stimuli and provides auditory and visual feedback as well as progressive training, thereby maintaining patients' interest in the auditory training exercises. Recent scientific studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of such specialized auditory training programs in improving cochlear implant patients' speech recognition performance. Provided with an inexpensive and accessible auditory training program, cochlear implant patients may find the motivation and momentum to get the most from the implanted device.

KEYWORDS

Auditory training - cochlear implants - computer-assisted speech training

REFERENCES

  • 1 Eggermont J J, Ponton C W. Auditory-evoked potential studies of cortical maturation in normal hearing and implanted children: correlations with changes in structure and speech perception.  Acta Otolaryngol. 2003;  123 249-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kelly A S, Purdy S C, Thorne P R. Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users.  Clin Neurophysiol. 2005;  116 1235-1246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Donaldson G S, Nelson D A. Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1999;  107 1645-1658
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cazals Y, Pelizzone M, Saudan O, Boex C. Low-pass filtering in amplitude modulation detection associated with vowel and consonant identification in subjects with cochlear implants.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1994;  96 2048-2054
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fu Q-J. Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users.  Neuroreport. 2002;  13 1635-1640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Busby P A, Clark G M. Gap detection by early-deafened cochlear-implant subjects.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1999;  105 1841-1852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cazals Y, Pelizzone M, Kasper A, Montandon P. Indication of a relation between speech perception and temporal resolution for cochlear implantees.  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1991;  100 893-895
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Muchnik C, Taitelbaum R, Tene S, Hildesheimer M. Auditory temporal resolution and open speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients.  Scand Audiol. 1994;  23 105-109
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 George C R, Cafarelli Dees D, Sheridan C, Haacke N. Preliminary findings of the new Spectra 22 speech processor with first-time cochlear implant users.  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1995;  166 272-275
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gray R F, Quinn S J, Court I, Vanat Z, Baguley D M. Patient performance over eighteen months with the Ineraid intracochlear implant.  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1995;  166 275-277
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Loeb G E, Kessler D K. Speech recognition performance over time with the Clarion cochlear prosthesis.  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1995;  166 290-292
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Spivak L G, Waltzman S B. Performance of cochlear implant patients as a function of time.  J Speech Hear Res. 1990;  33 511-519
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Waltzman S B, Cohen N L, Shapiro W H. Long-term effects of multichannel cochlear implant usage.  Laryngoscope. 1986;  96(10) 1083-1087
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tyler R S, Gantz B J, Woodworth G G, Fryauf-Bertschy H, Kelsay D M. Performance of 2- and 3-year-old children and prediction of 4-year from 1-year performance.  Am J Otol. 1997;  18 S157-S159
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Dorman M F, Loizou P C. Changes in speech intelligibility as a function of time and signal processing strategy for an Inneraid patient fitted with continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) processors.  Ear Hear. 1997;  18 147-155
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Hillenbrand J, Getty L A, Clark M J, Wheeler K. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1995;  97 3099-3111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sweetow R, Palmer C V. Efficacy of individual auditory training in adults: a systematic review of the evidence.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;  16 494-504
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bloom S. Technologic advances raise prospects for a resurgence in use of auditory training.  The Hearing Journal. 2004;  57(8) 19-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hesse G, Nelting M, Mohrmann B, Laubert A, Ptok M. Intensive inpatient therapy of auditory processing and perceptual disorders in childhood.  HNO. 2001;  49 636-641
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Musiek F E, Baran J A, Schochat E. Selected management approaches to central auditory processing disorders.  Scand Audiol Suppl. 1999;  51 63-76
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Merzenich M M, Jenkins W M, Johnston P, Schreiner C, Miller S L, Tallal P. Temporal processing deficits of language-learning impaired children ameliorated by training.  Science. 1996;  271(5245) 77-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Tallal P, Miller S L, Bedi G et al.. Language comprehension in language-learning impaired children improved with acoustically modified speech.  Science. 1996;  271 81-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Busby P A, Roberts S A, Tong Y C, Clark G M. Results of speech perception and speech production training for three prelingually deaf patients using a multiple-electrode cochlear implant.  Br J Audiol. 1991;  25 291-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dawson P W, Clark G M. Changes in synthetic and natural vowel perception after specific training for congenitally deafened patients using a multichannel cochlear implant.  Ear Hear. 1997;  18 488-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Fu Q J, Galvin 3rd J J, Wang X, Nogaki G. Moderate auditory training can improve speech performance of adult cochlear implant users.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;  113 1065-1072
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Galvin J J, Fu Q-J, Nogaki G. Melodic sequence identification in cochlear implants.  Ear Hear. 2007;  , In press
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kong Y Y, Cruz R, Jones J A, Zeng F-G. Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing.  Ear Hear. 2004;  25 173-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lin M-C. The acoustic characteristics and perceptual cues of tones in Standard Chinese.  Chinese Yuwen. 1988;  204 182-193
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wang R-H. Chinese phonetics. In: Chen Y-B, Wang R-H Speech Signal Processing. Hefei, China; University of Science and Technology of China Press 1989: 37-64
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Fu Q-J, Zeng F-G, Shannon R V, Soli S D. Importance of tonal envelope cues in Chinese speech recognition.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;  104 505-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Fu Q-J, Hsu C-J, Horng M-J. Effects of speech processing strategy on Chinese tone recognition by nucleus-24 cochlear implant patients.  Ear Hear . 2004;  25 501-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Fu Q-J, Zeng F-G. Effects of envelope cues on Mandarin Chinese tone recognition.  Asia-Pacific J Speech Lang Hear. 2000;  5 45-57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Whalen D H, Xu Y. Information for Mandarin tones in the amplitude contour and in brief segments.  Phonetica. 1992;  49 25-47
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Wu J-L, Yang H-M, Lin Y-H, Fu Q-J. Effects of computer-assisted speech training on Mandarin-speaking hearing impaired children.  Audiology and Neuro-Otology (ANO). 2007;  , In press
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Fu Q-J, Nogaki G, Galvin III J J. Auditory training with spectrally shifted speech: an implication for cochlear implant users' auditory rehabilitation.  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2005;  6 180-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Nogaki G, Fu Q-J, Galvin J J. The effect of training rate on recognition of spectrally shifted speech.  Ear Hear. 2007;  , In press
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Shannon R V, Jensvold A, Padilla M, Robert M E, Wang X. Consonant recordings for speech testing.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1999;  106 L71-L74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Tremblay K, Kraus N, Carrell T D, McGee T. Central auditory system plasticity: generalization to novel stimuli following listening training.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1997;  102 3762-3773
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Tremblay K, Kraus N, McGee T. The time course of auditory perceptual learning: neurophysiological changes during speech-sound training.  Neuroreport. 1998;  9 3557-3560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Fu Q J, Shannon R V, Galvin J J. Perceptual learning following changes in the frequency-to-electrode assignment with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;  112(4) 1664-1674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Wilson B S, Finley C C, Lawson D T, Wolford R D, Eddington D K, Rabinowitz W M. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants.  Nature. 1991;  352 236-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Rosen S, Faulkner A, Wilkinson L. Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1999;  106(6) 3629-3636
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Qian-Jie FuPh.D. 

Department of Auditory Implants and Perception, House Ear Institute

2100 West Third St., Los Angeles, CA 90057

Email: qfu@hei.org