Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical evaluation of the xDP output compression strategy for cochlear implants

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

Abstract

Technological advances in the domain of digital signal processing adapted to cochlear implants (CI) are partially responsible for the ever-improving outcomes observed with this neural prosthesis. The goal of the present study was to evaluate audiometric outcomes with a new signal processing strategy implemented in Oticon Medical-Neurelec cochlear implant systems, the xDP strategy. The core of this approach is a preset-based back-end output compression system, modulating a multi-channel transfer function depending on the intensity and information content of input sounds. Twenty adult CI patients, matched for age and CI experience, were included in this study. Pure-tone thresholds and vocal audiometry scores were measured with their former signal processing strategy and with xDP. Speech perception was assessed using dissyllabic words presented in quiet, at different intensity levels: 40, 55, 70, and 85 dB SPL, and in a cocktail party noise at a signal-to-noise ratio of +10 dB. Results with the xDP strategy showed, as awaited, no major modification of pure-tone thresholds. A global increase of speech perception scores was observed after a 1-month habituation period, with significant improvements for speech perception in quiet for moderate (55 dB SPL), loud speech sounds (85 dB SPL), and speech-in-noise comprehension. Subjective signal quality assessment showed a preference for CrystalisxDP over the former strategy. These results allow the quantification of improvements provided by the xDP signal processing strategy.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blamey PJ, Maat B, Başkent D, Mawman D, Burke E, Dillier N, Beynon A, Kleine-Punte A, Govaerts PJ, Skarzynski PH, Huber AM, Sterkers-Artières F, Van de Heyning P, O’Leary S, Fraysse B, Green K, Sterkers O, Venail F, Skarzynski H, Vincent C, Truy E, Dowell R, Bergeron F, Lazard DS (2015) A retrospective Multicenter Study comparing Speech Perception Outcomes for Bilateral Implantation and Bimodal rehabilitation. Ear Hear [Epub ahead of print]

  2. Lazard DS, Vincent C, Venail F, Van de Heyning P, Truy E, Sterkers O, Skarzynski PH, Skarzynski H, Schauwers K, O’Leary S, Mawman D, Maat B, Kleine-Punte A, Huber AM, Green K, Govaerts PJ, Fraysse B, Dowell R, Dillier N, Burke E, Beynon A, Bergeron F, Başkent D, Artières F, Blamey PJ (2012) Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time. PLoS One 7(11):e48739. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048739

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Sarant JZ, Holt CM, Dowell RC, Rickards FW, Blamey PJ (2009) Spoken language development in oral preschool children with permanent childhood deafness. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 14(2):205–217. doi:10.1093/deafed/enn034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bond M, Mealing S, Anderson R, Elston J, Weiner G, Taylor RS, Hoyle M, Liu Z, Price A, Stein K (2009) The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess 13(44):1–330. doi:10.3310/hta13440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Skinner MW, Holden LK, Holden TA, Demorest ME, Fourakis MS (1997) Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 101(6):3766–3782

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zeng FG, Galvin JJ (1999) Amplitude compression and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear 20(1):60–74

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hornsby BW, Ricketts TA (2001) The effects of compression ratio, signal-to-noise ratio, and level on speech recognition in normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 109(6):2964–2973

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Neuman AC, Bakke MH, Hellman S, Levitt H (1994) Effect of compression ratio in a slow-acting compression hearing aid: paired-comparison judgments of sound quality. J Acoust Soc Am 96(3):1471–1478

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Neuman AC, Bakke MH, Mackersie C, Hellman S, Levitt H (1998) The effect of compression ratio and release time on the categorical rating of sound quality. J Acoust Soc Am 103(5 Pt 1):2273–2281

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Beranek LL (1947) The design of speech communication systems. Proc Inst Radio Eng 35:880–890

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dunn HK, White SD (1940) Statistical measurements on conversational speech. J Acoust Soc Am 11:278–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fletcher H (1953) Speech and Hearing in Communication. Van Nostrand, Princeton

  13. Zeng FG, Grant G, Niparko J, Galvin J, Shannon R, Opie J, Segel P (2002) Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. J Acoust Soc Am 111(1 Pt 1):377–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Loizou PC (1998) Mimicking the human ear. IEEE Signal Proc Mag 15(5):101–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Hoesel R, Ramsden R, Odriscoll M (2002) Sound-direction identification, interaural time delay discrimination, and speech intelligibility advantages in noise for a bilateral cochlear implant user. Ear Hear 23(2):137–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Boyle PJ, Büchner A, Stone MA, Lenarz T, Moore BCJ (2009) Comparison of dual-time-constant and fast acting automatic gain control (AGC) systems in cochlear implants. Int J Audiol 48(4):211–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moore BCJ (2008) The choice of compression speed in hearing aids: theoretical and practical considerations and the role of individual differences. Trends Amp 12(2):103–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stone MA, Moore BCJ (2007) Quantifying the effects of fast-acting compression on the envelope of speech. J Acoust Soc Am 121(3):1654–1664

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stone MA, Moore BCJ (2008) Effects of spectro-temporal modulation changes produced by multi-channel compression on Intelligibility in a competing-speech task. J Acoust Soc Am 123(2):1063–1076. doi:10.1121/1.2821969

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Loiselle LH (2007) Performance of patients using different cochlear implant systems: effects of input dynamic range. Ear Hear 28(2):260–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cox RM, Matesich JS, Moore JN (1988) Distributions of short-term rms levels in conversational speech. J Acoust Soc Am 84(3):1100–1104

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pavlovic CV (1993) Problems in the prediction of speech recognition performance of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired individuals. In Studebaker GA, Hochberg I (eds) Acoustical factors affecting hearing aid performance, 2nd ed. Boston, pp 221–234

  23. Boothroyd A, Erickson FN, Medwetsky L (1994) The hearing aid input: a phonemic approach to assessing the spectral distribution of speech. Ear Hear 15(6):432–442

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stobich B, Zierhofer CM, Hochmair ES (1999) Influence of automatic gain control parameter settings on speech understanding of cochlear implant users employing the continuous interleaved sampling strategy. Ear Hear 20(2):104–116

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Eddington D (1999) Speech processors for auditory prostheses. NIDCD Contract N01-DC-6-2100, Final Progress Report

  26. Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL, McDaniel DM, Gwaltney CA (1999) Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels. J Acoust Soc Am 105(4):2431–2444

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Khing PP, Swanson BA, Ambikairajah E (2013) The effect of automatic gain control structure and release time on cochlear implant speech intelligibility. PLoS One 8(11):e82263. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082263

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Moore BC, Glasberg BR (1988) A comparison of four methods of implementing automatic gain control (AGC) in hearing aids. Br J Audiol 22(2):93–104

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Léger AC, Moore BC, Gnansia D, Lorenzi C (2012) Effects of spectral smearing on the identification of speech in noise filtered into low- and mid-frequency regions. J Acoust Soc Am 131(5):4114–4123. doi:10.1121/1.3699265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Studebaker GA (1985) A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28(3):455–462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Studebaker GA, McDaniel DM, Sherbecoe RL (1995) Evaluating relative speech recognition performance using the proficiency factor and rationalized arcsine differences. J Am Acad Audiol 6(2):173–182

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lorenzi C, Sibellas J, Füllgrabe C, Gallégo S, Fugain C, Meyer B (2004) Effects of amplitude compression on first- and second-order modulation detection thresholds in cochlear implant listeners. Int J Audiol 43(5):264–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Head and Neck Surgery, CHU-University Hospital of Dijon, Dijon, France

    Alexis Bozorg-Grayeli

  2. University Head and Neck Institute, CHU de Nice, Nice, France

    Nicolas Guevara & Philippe Romanet

  3. ENT Department, Pellegrin Hospital, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France

    Jean-Pierre Bebear

  4. Clinical and Scientific Research Department, Oticon Medical-Neurelec, 2720 Chemin Saint Bernard, 06220, Vallauris, France

    Marine Ardoint, Sonia Saaï, Michel Hoen & Dan Gnansia

  5. ENT Department, Nord Hospital, Marseille, France

    Jean-Pierre Lavieille

Authors
  1. Alexis Bozorg-Grayeli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicolas Guevara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean-Pierre Bebear
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marine Ardoint
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sonia Saaï
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michel Hoen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dan Gnansia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Philippe Romanet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jean-Pierre Lavieille
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michel Hoen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

This study was sponsored by Oticon Medical-Neurelec. Four authors, M.A., S.S., M.H. & D.G., are employees of Oticon Medical, manufacturer of the technology described in the article. These authors were implicated in the study design and manuscript preparation.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The protocol was approved by the ethical committee CPP Sud Méditerannée Marseille I (IRB: 2012-A00112-41).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bozorg-Grayeli, A., Guevara, N., Bebear, JP. et al. Clinical evaluation of the xDP output compression strategy for cochlear implants. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273, 2363–2371 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3796-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3796-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation