Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fine structure processing improves telephone speech perception in cochlear implant users

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare telephone speech perception and subjective preferences in cochlear implant users with two different speech-processing strategies: high-definition continuous interleaved sampling (HDCIS) and fine structure processing (FSP). A randomized double-blind study was designed for intra-individual comparison of HDCIS and FSP. Twenty-five post-lingually deafened patients with either the PulsarCI100 or SonataTI100 and Opus2 acoustic processor were tested consecutively with both coding strategies, assigned in a random order. Disyllabic word speech perception was tested 6 weeks after each fitting under the following conditions: landline use with (LWN) and without (LWoN) background noise, mobile use with (MWN), and without (MWoN) background noise and mobile use with a Bluetooth magnetic field transmitter necklace (MB). Changes in health-related quality of life (QoL) were assessed using the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and Faber’s questionnaire. Personal preferences between strategies were surveyed upon completion of the study. All subjects included in this study performed better with FSP in the landline tests. There was an improvement of 11.5 % in LWN use (p = 0.014; CI 95 % = 3–20 %) and 10 % in LWoN use (p = 0.001; CI 95 % = 5–15 %). MWoN showed an improvement of 6.3 % with FSP (p = 0.03; CI 95 % = 0–13 %). MB tests showed an improvement of 11 % with FSP (p < 0.05; CI 95 % = 1.5–22 %). Quality of life was significantly better using FSP. Eighty-four percent of participants preferred FSP. The FSP speech coding strategy improved the speech recognition of cochlear implant users when using the telephone compared to HDCIS. Cochlear implantation with FSP coding improved QoL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cohen NL, Waltzmann SB, Shapiro WH (1989) Telephone speech comprehension with use of the nucleus cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 142:8–11

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Adams JS, Hasenstab MS, Pippin GW, Sismanis A (2004) Telephone use and understanding in patients with cochlear implants. Ear Nose Throat J 83:96–103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rodman J (2003) The effect of bandwidth on speech intelligibility. http://www.spectrum.com.sg/pdfs/The_Effect_of_Bandwidth_on_Speech_Intelligibility.pdf Accessed 22 July 2011

  4. Brown M, Clark GM, Dowell RC, Martin FA, Seligman PM (1985) Telephone use and understanding in patients with cochlear implants. J Laryngol Otol 99:231–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Castro A, Lassaletta A, Bastarrica M, Prim MP, de Sarria MJ, Gavilan J (2005) Speech discrimination through telephone in patients implanted with a Combi 40+. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 56(6):246–251

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kelsall DC, Shallop JK, Burnelli T (1995) Cochlear implantation in the elderly. Am J Otol 16:609–615

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Facer GW, Peterson A, Brey AH, Marion M, Cevette M, Balki K, Green D, Rose D, Pool A (1994) The Mayo Clinic experience with the cochlear implant. Ear Nose Throat J 73:149–152 154–155

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ito J, Nakatake M, Jujita S (1999) Hearing ability by telephone of patients with cochlear implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 121:802–804

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wilson S, Finlay CC, Lawson DT, Wolford RD, Eddington DK, Rabinowitz WM (1991) Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 352:236–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pasanisi E, Bacciu A, Vincenti V, Guida M, Berghenti MT, Barbot A, Panu F, Bacciu S (2002) Comparison of speech perception benefits with SPEAK and ACE coding strategies in pediatric nucleus CI24 M cochlear implant recipients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 64:159–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hilbert C (1912) Grundzüge einer allgemeinen theorie der linearan integralgleichungen. Teubner, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  12. Vermiere K, Kleine Punte A, Van de Heyning P (2010) Better speech recognition in noise with the fine structure processing coding strategy. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 72(6):305–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Robinson K, Gatehouse S, Browning GG (1996) Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 105:415–422

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Faber E, Grontved AM (2000) Cochlear implantation and change in quality of life. Otolaryngol 543:151–153

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Anderson I, Baumgartner WD, Böheim K, Nahler A, Arnolder C, D’Haese P (2006) Telephone use: what benefit do cochlear implant users receive? Int J Audiol 45(10):446–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Riss D, Arnolder C, Baumgartner WD, Hamzavi JS (2008) A new fine structure coding strategy: speech perception at a reduced number of channels. Otol Neurotol 29:784–788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Arnolder C, Riss D, Brunner M, Durisin M, Baumgartner WD (2007) Speech and music perception with the new fine structure speech coding strategy: preliminary results. Acta Otolaryngol 127(12):1298–1303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lorens A, Zgoda M, Obrycka A, Skarzynski H (2010) Fine structure processing improves speech perception as well as objective and subjective benefits in pediatric MED-EL COMBI 40 + users. Int J Pediatr Otohinolaryngol 74(12):1372–1378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nopp P, Polak M (2010) From electric acoustic stimulation to improved sound coding in cochlear implants. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 67:88–95

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Qian H, Louzou PC, Dorman MF (2003) A phone assistive device based on Bluetooth technology for cochlear implant users. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 11(3):282–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brill S, Müller R, Hagen R, Möltner A, Brockmeier S, Stark T (2011) Clinical trial results with the MED-EL fine structure processing coding strategy in experienced CIS users. Ear Hear (in submission)

  22. Cohen SM, Labadie RF, Dietrich MS, Haynes DS (2004) Quality of life in hearing-impaired adults: the role of cochlear implants and hearing aids. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 131:413–422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bichey BG, Hoversland JM, Wynne MK, Miyamoto RT (2002) Changes inn quality of life and the cost-utility associated with large vestibular aqueduct syndrome. Otol Neurotol 23:323–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Francis W, Chee N, Yeagle J, Cheng A, Niparko JK (2002) Impact of cochlear implants on the functional health status of older adults. Laryngoscope 112:1482–1488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lassaletta L, Castro C, Bastarrica M, Sarria MJ, Gavilan J (2006) Quality of life in postlingually deaf patients following cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 263:267–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cray W, Allen RL, Stuart A, Hudson S, Layman E, Givens GD (2004) An investigation of telephone use among cochlear implant recipients. Am J Audiol 13:200–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital La Paz, Secretaria de Otorrinolaringología, 4th Floor, Paseo de la Castellana 261, 28046, Madrid, Spain

    Javier Galindo, Luis Lassaletta, Rosa Pérez Mora, Alejandro Castro, Marta Bastarrica & Javier Gavilán

  2. Hospital La Paz Institute for Health Research idiPAZ, Madrid, Spain

    Javier Galindo, Luis Lassaletta, Rosa Pérez Mora, Alejandro Castro, Marta Bastarrica & Javier Gavilán

Authors
  1. Javier Galindo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luis Lassaletta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rosa Pérez Mora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alejandro Castro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marta Bastarrica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Javier Gavilán
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javier Galindo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Galindo, J., Lassaletta, L., Mora, R.P. et al. Fine structure processing improves telephone speech perception in cochlear implant users. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270, 1223–1229 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-012-2101-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-012-2101-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation