Intersubject variability in perception is a prominent characteristic of people with cochlear implants. This study characterized intersubject differences using simple metrics based on psychophysical measures: maximum comfortable loudness levels (C levels) and dynamic ranges (DRs). In a group of 17 subjects, we assessed across-site variation (ASV) and across-site mean (ASM) values of C levels and DRs for bipolar (BP) and monopolar (MP) stimulation, and examined the relation of these metrics to speech recognition across subjects. Significant negative correlations with speech recognition were found for ASVs of C levels for BP stimulation; i.e., subjects with high ASVs of BP C levels had poor speech recognition. Positive correlations with speech recognition were found for ASMs of C levels and ASMs of DRs for both BP and MP stimulation; i.e., subjects with high mean C levels and large mean DRs had better speech recognition. Thus, these psychophysical metrics are effective for diagnosis of individual differences in performance of subjects with cochlear implants. Furthermore, they point to some potentially useful treatment procedures.

Keywords:
Auditory prosthesis, Cochlear implant, Speech recognition, Across-site variation, C level, T level, Dynamic range
1.
Blamey PJ, Arndt P, Bergeron F: Factors affecting auditory performance of postlingually deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol 1996;1:293–306.
2.
Blamey PJ, Pyman BC, Gordon M, Clark GM, Brown AM, Dowell RC, Hollow RD: Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1992;101:342–348.
3.
Collins LM, Wakefield GH, Feinman GR: Temporal pattern discrimination and speech recognition under electrical stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am 1994;96:2731–2737.
4.
Donaldson GS, Nelson DA: 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 2000;107:1645–1658.
5.
Franck KH, Xu L, Pfingst BE: Effects of stimulus level on speech perception with cochlear prostheses. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2002;4:49–59.
6.
Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X: Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;110:1150–1163.
7.
Frijns JH, de Snoo SL, Schoonhoven R: Potential distributions and neural excitation patterns in a rotationally symmetric model of the electrically stimulated cochlea. Hear Res 1995;87:170–186.
8.
Hillenbrand J, Getty LA, Clark MJ, Wheeler K: Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 1995;97:3099–3111.
9.
Hogan CA, Turner CW: High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:432–441.
10.
Hong RS, Rubinstein JT: High-rate conditioning pulse trains in cochlear implants: dynamic range measures with sinusoidal stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;114:3327–3342.
11.
Kawano A, Seldon HL, Clark GM, Ramsden RT, Raine CH: Intracochlear factors contributing to psychophysical percepts following cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1998;118:313–326.
12.
Kileny PR, Zimmerman-Phillips S, Kemink JL, Schmaltz SP: Effects of preoperative electrical stimulability and historical factors on performance with multichannel cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991;100:563–568.
13.
Knutson JF, Hinrichs JV, Tyler RS, Gantz BJ, Schartz HA, Woodworth G: Psychological predictors of audiological outcomes of multichannel cochlear implants: preliminary findings. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991;100:817–822.
14.
Kreft HA, Donaldson GS, Nelson DA: Effects of pulse rate on threshold and dynamic range in Clarion cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;115:1885–1888.
15.
Kuk FK, Tyler RS, Gantz BJ, Bertschy M: Intensity operating range measures as predictors of word-recognition ability in cochlear implant subjects. Scand Audiol 1990;19:139–145.
16.
Miller CA, Abbas PJ, Nourski KV, Hu N, Robinson BK: Electrode configuration influences action potential initiation site and ensemble stochastic response properties. Hear Res 2003;175:200–214.
17.
Mino H, Rubinstein JT, Miller CA, Abbas PJ: Effects of electrode-to-fiber distance on temporal neural response with electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2004;51:13–20.
18.
Moore BCJ: Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Damage. New York, Oxford University Press, 1995.
19.
Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA: Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994;95:1085–1099.
20.
Pfingst BE, Holloway LA, Zwolan TA, Collins LM: Effects of stimulus level on electrode-place discrimination in human subjects with cochlear implants. Hear Res 1999;134:105–115.
21.
Pfingst BE, Xu L: Across-site variation in detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels for cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2004;5:11–24.
22.
Pfingst BE, Xu L, Thompson CS: Across-site threshold variation in cochlear implants: relation to speech recognition. Audiol Neurootol 2004;9:341–352.
23.
Pisoni DB: Cognitive factors and cochlear implants: some thoughts on perception, learning, and memory in speech perception. Ear Hear 2000;21:70–78.
24.
Rubinstein JT, Parkinson WS, Tyler RS, Gantz BJ: Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. Am J Otol 1999;20:445–452.
25.
Shannon RV, Galvin JJ 3rd, Baskent D: Holes in hearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2002;3:185–199.
26.
Shannon RV, Jensvold A, Padilla M, Robert ME, Wang X: Consonant recordings for speech testing (letter). J Acoust Soc Am 1999;106:L71–L74.
27.
Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Wygonski J: Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:2467–2476.
28.
Turner CW, Cummings KJ: Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. Am J Audiol 1999;8:47–56.
29.
Turner CW, Chi SL, Flock S: Limiting spectral resolution in speech for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1999;42:773–784.
30.
van den Honert C, Stypulkowski PH: Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. 2. Single fiber recordings. Hear Res 1984;14:225–243.
31.
Zwolan TA, Collins LM, Wakefield GH: Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1997;102:3673–3685.
© 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel
2005
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.