Objectives: To assess the subjective and objective performance of the new fine structure processing strategy (FSP) compared to the previous generation coding strategies CIS+ and HDCIS. Methods: Forty-six adults with a minimum of 6 months of cochlear implant experience were included. CIS+, HDCIS and FSP were compared in speech perception tests in noise, pitch scaling and questionnaires. The randomized tests were performed acutely (interval 1) and again after 3 months of FSP experience (interval 3). The subjective evaluation included questionnaire 1 at intervals 1 and 3, and questionnaire 2 at interval 2, 1 month after interval 1. Results: Comparison between FSP and CIS+ showed that FSP performed at least as well as CIS+ in all speech perception tests, and outperformed CIS+ in vowel and monosyllabic word discrimination. Comparison between FSP and HDCIS showed that both performed equally well in all speech perception tests. Pitch scaling showed that FSP performed at least as well as HDCIS. With FSP, sound quality was at least as good and often better than with HDCIS. Conclusions: Results indicate that FSP performs better than CIS+ in vowel and monosyllabic word understanding. Subjective evaluation demonstrates strong user preferences for FSP when listening to speech and music.

Keywords:
Pitch, CIS+, OPUS, Fine structure processing, Cochlear implant, Coding strategy, Speech perception, Music
1.
Hilbert D: Grundzüge einer allgemeinen Theorie der linearen Integralgleichungen. Leipzig, Teubner, 1912.
2.
Pickles JO: An Introduction to the Physiology of Hearing, ed 3. Bingley, Emerald Group Publishing Ltd, 2008.
3.
Smith ZM, Delgutte B, Oxenham AJ: Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature 2002;416:87-90.
4.
Eddington DK: Future Directions: Questions Deserving Attention. Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses, Asilomar Conference Center, Pacific Grove, August 1999.
5.
Wilson BS: Strategies for representing speech information with cochlear implants; in Niparko JK, Kirk KI, Mellon NK, Robbins AM, Tucci DL, Wilson BS (eds): Cochlear Implants: Principles and Practices. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000, pp 129–170.
6.
Zeng FG, Nie K, Stickney G, Kong YY: Auditory perception with slowly-varying amplitude and frequency modulations; in Pressnitzer D, de Cheveigne A, McAdams S, and Collet L (eds): Auditory Signal Processing: Physiology, Psychoacoustics, and Models. New York, Springer, 2004, pp 282–290.
7.
Wong A, Wong L: Tone perception of Cantonese speaking prelingually hearing impaired children with cochlear implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:751–758.
8.
Fu QJ, Chinchilla S, Galvin JJ: The role of spectral and temporal cues in voice gender discrimination by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2004;5:253–260.
9.
McDermott H: Music perception with cochlear implants: a review. Trends Amplif 2004;8:49–82.
10.
Von Ilberg C, Kiefer J, Tillein J, Pfennigdorf T, Hartmann R, Stürzebecher E, Klinke R: Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. ORL 1999;61:334–340.
11.
Kiefer J, Pok S, Adunka O, Sturzebecher E, Baumgartner W, Schmidt M, Tillein J, Ye Q, Gstoettner W: Combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a clinical study. Audiol Neurotol 2005;10:134–144.
12.
Helms J, Müller J, Schön F, Winkler F, Shehata-Dieler W, Kastenbauer E, Baumann U, Rasp G, Schorn K, Ebetaer B, Baumgartner W, Hamzavi S, Gstöttner W, Westhofen M, Döring W, Dujardin H, Albegger K, Mair A, Zenner H, Haferkamp C, Schmitz-Salue C, Arold R, Sesterhenn G, Jahnke V, Wagner H, Gräbel S, Bockmühl U, Häusler R, Vischer M, Kompis M, Hildmann H, Radü H, Stark T, Engel A, Hildmann A, Streitberger C, Hüttenbrink K, Müller-Aschoff E, Hofmann G, Seeling K, Hloucal U, von Ilberg C, Kiefer J, Pfennigdorf T, Gall V, Breitfuss A, Stelzig Y, Begall K, Hey M, Vorwerk W, Thumfart W, Gunkel A, Zorowka P, Stephan K, Gammert C, Mathis A, DeMin N, Freigang B, Ziese M, Stützel A, von Specht H, Arnold W, Brockmeier S, Ebenhoch H, Steinhoff A, Zierhofer C, Zwicknagl M, Stöbich B: Comparison of the TEMPO+ ear-level speech processor and the CIS PRO+ body-worn processor in adult MED-EL cochlear implant users. ORL 2001;63:31–40.
13.
Zierhofer C: Electrical nerve stimulation based on channel specific sampling sequences. US patent No 6,594,525 B1, July 15, 2003.
14.
Arnoldner C, Riss D, Brunner M, Durisin M, Baumgartner W, Hamzavi J: Speech and music perception with the new fine structure speech coding strategy: preliminary results. Acta Otolaryngol 2007;127:1298–1303.
15.
Looi V, Winter P, Anderson I, Sucher C: A music quality rating test battery for cochlear implant users to compare the FSP and HDCIS strategies for music appreciation. Int J Audiol 2011;50:503–518.
16.
Wilson BS, Lawson DT, Zerbi M, Finley CC: Virtual channels interleaved sampling (VCIS) processor. First Quarterly Progress Report, NIH Contract N01-DC-2-2401, Neural Prosthesis Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, 1992.
17.
Wilson BS, Zerbi M, Lawson DT: Identification of virtual channels conditions on the basis of pitch. Third Quarterly Progress Report, NIH Contract N01-DC-2-2401, Neural Prosthesis Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, 1993.
18.
Nobbe A, Schleich P, Zierhofer C, Nopp P: Frequency discrimination with sequential or simultaneous stimulation in MED-EL cochlear implants. Acta Otolaryngol 2007;127:1266–1272.
19.
Wagener K, Kollmeier B, Kühnel V: Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache. 1. Design des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol 1999;38:4–15.
20.
Wagener K, Brand T, Kollmeier B: Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache. 2. Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol 1999;38:44–56.
21.
Wagener K, Brand T, Kollmeier B: Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache. 3. Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol 1999;38:86–95.
22.
Hahlbrock KH: Wörter für Gehörprüfung mit Sprache; in Hahlbrock KH: Sprachaudiometrie, ed 2. Thieme, Stuttgart, 1970.
23.
Helms J, Müller J, Schön F, Moser L, Arnold W, Janssen T, Ramsden R, von Ilberg C, Kiefer J, Pfennigdorf T, Gstöttner W, Baumgartner W, Ehrenberger K, Skarzynski H, Ribari O, Thumfart W, Stephan K, Mann W, Heinemann M, Zorowka P, Lippert KL, Zenner HP, Bohndorf M, Hüttenbrink K, Müller- Aschoff E, Hofmann G, Freigang B, Begall K, Ziese M, Forgbert O, Häusler R, Vischer M, Schlatter T, Schlöndorff G, Korves B, Döring H, Gerhardt HJ, Wagner H, Schorn K, Schilling V, Baumann U, Kastenbauer E, Albegger K, Mair A, Gammert C, Mathis A, Streitberger C, Hochmair-Desoyer I: Evaluation of performance with the COMBI40 cochlear implant in adults: a multicentric clinical study. ORL 1997;59:23–35.
24.
Berger RL, Hsu JC: Bioequivalence trials, intersection-union tests and confidence sets. Stat Sci 1996;11:283–319.
25.
Crystal D: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987.
26.
Wells JC: German. http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/german.htm. Updated March 18, 2006 (accessed November 11, 2011).
27.
Wells JC: English. http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/english.htm. Updated March 18, 2006 (accessed November 11, 2011).
28.
Veekmans K, Ressel L, Mueller J, Vischer M, Brockmeier SJ: Comparison of music perception in bilateral and unilateral cochlear implant users and normal-hearing subjects. Audiol Neurootol 2009;14:315–326.
29.
Anderson I, Baumgartner WD, Böheim K, Nahler A, Arnolder C, D’Haese P: Telephone use: what benefit do people with a cochlear implant receive? Int J Audiol 2006;45:446–453.
30.
Tyler RS, Gfeller K, Mehr MA: A preliminary investigation comparing one and eight channels at slow rates on music appraisal in adults with cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int 2000;1:82–87.
31.
Brockmeier SJ, Nopp P, Vischer M, Baumgartner W, Stark T, Schön F, Müller J, Braunschweig T, Busch R, Getto M, Arnold W, Allum DJ: Correlation of speech and music perception in postlingually deaf Combi 40/40+ users; in Kubo T, Takahashi Y, Iwaki T (eds): Cochlear Implants: An Update: The Hague, Kugler Publications, 2002, pp 459–464.
32.
Brockmeier SJ, Grasmeder M, Passow S, Mawmann D, Vischer M, Jappel A, Baumgartner W, Stark T, Müller J, Brill S, Steffens T, Strutz J, Kiefer J, Baumann U, Arnold W: Comparison of musical activities of cochlear implant users with difference speech-coding strategies. Ear Hear 2007;28(2 suppl):49S–51S.
33.
Lorens A, Zgoda M, Obrycka A, Skarzynski H: Fine structure processing improves speech perception as well as objective and subjective benefits in pediatric MED-EL COMBI 40+ users. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2010;74:1372–1378.
34.
Krenmayr A, Visser D, Schatzer R, Zierhofer C: The effects of fine structure stimulation on pitch pitch perception with cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int 2011;12:70–72.
35.
Riss D, Hamzavi JS, Katzinger M, Baumgartner WD, Kaider A, Gstoettner W, Arnoldner C: Effects of fine structure and extended low frequencies in pediatric cochlear implant recipients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011;75:573–578.
36.
Riss D, Arnoldner C, Reiss S, Baumgartner WD, Hamzavi JS: 1-year results using the Opus speech processor with the fine structure speech coding strategy. Acta Otolaryngol 2009;129:988–991.
37.
Vermeire K, Kleine-Punte A, Van de Heyning P: Better speech recognition in noise with the fine structure processing coding strategy. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2010;72:305–311.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
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.