Chapter title |
Deactivating Cochlear Implant Electrodes Based on Pitch Information for Users of the ACE Strategy
|
---|---|
Chapter number | 13 |
Book title |
Physiology, Psychoacoustics and Cognition in Normal and Impaired Hearing
|
Published in |
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, April 2016
|
DOI | 10.1007/978-3-319-25474-6_13 |
Pubmed ID | |
Book ISBNs |
978-3-31-925472-2, 978-3-31-925474-6
|
Authors |
Deborah Vickers, Aneeka Degun, Angela Canas, Thomas Stainsby, Filiep Vanpoucke |
Editors |
Pim van Dijk, Deniz Başkent, Etienne Gaudrain, Emile de Kleine, Anita Wagner, Cris Lanting |
Abstract |
There is a wide range in performance for cochlear implant (CI) users and there is some evidence to suggest that implant fitting can be modified to improve performance if electrodes that do not provide distinct pitch information are de-activated. However, improvements in performance may not be the same for users of all CI devices; in particular for those with Cochlear devices using n-of-m strategies (ACE or SPEAK).The goal of this research was to determine for users of Cochlear devices (CP810 or CP900 series processors) if speech perception could be improved when indiscriminable electrodes were de-activated and this was also compared to when the same number of discriminable electrodes were de-activated.A cross-over study was conducted with 13 adult CI users who received experimental maps with de-activated channels for a minimum of 2 months and these were compared to optimised clinical maps.The findings showed that there were no significant benefits of electrode de-activation on speech perception and that there was a significant deterioration in spectro-temporal ripple perception when electrodes were switched off. There were no significant differences between de-activation of discriminable or indiscriminable electrodes.These findings suggest that electrode de-activation with n-of-m strategies may not be beneficial. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 22% |
Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
Researcher | 4 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
Other | 7 | 17% |
Unknown | 11 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 17% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 12% |
Engineering | 4 | 10% |
Neuroscience | 4 | 10% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
Other | 4 | 10% |
Unknown | 15 | 37% |