Results of studies performed in our laboratory suggest that cochlear implant recipients understand speech best if the following speech processor parameters are individually chosen for each person: minimum and maximum stimulation levels on each electrode in the speech processor program (MAP), stimulation rate, and speech coding strategy. If these and related parameters are chosen to make soft sounds (from approximately 100 to 6,000 Hz) audible at as close to 20 dB hearing level as possible and loud sounds not too loud, recipients have the opportunity to hear speech in everyday life situations that are of key importance to children who are learning language and to all recipients in terms of ease of communication.
ZengF-GGrantGShannonRV. Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. J Acoust Soc Am2002: 111: 377–86.
3.
SkinnerMWBinzerSMPottsLGHoldenLKAaronRJ. Hearing rehabilitation for individuals with severe and profound hearing impairment: Hearing aids, cochlear implants, counseling and training. In: ValenteM, ed. Strategies for selecting and verifying hearing aid fittings. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Thieme, 2002: 311–44.
4.
MuellerHGKillionMC. An easy method for calculating the articulation index. Hear J1990; 49(9): 1–4.
5.
PearsonsKSBennettRLFidellS. Speech levels in various environments. Canoga Park, Calif: Bolt Beranek and Newman Report No. 321, 1976.
6.
FrenchNRSteinbergJC. Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am1947; 19: 90–119.
7.
PavlovicCV. Articulation index predictions of speech intelligibility in hearing aid selection. ASHA1986; 30(6/7): 63–5.
8.
PavlovicCVStudebakerGASherbecoeRI. An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. J Acoust Soc Am1985; 80: 50–7.
9.
PascoeDP. Frequency responses of hearing aids and their effects on the speech perception of hearing-impaired subjects. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl1975; 84(suppl 23).
10.
SkinnerMWHoldenLKHoldenTA. Effect of frequency boundary assignment on speech recognition with the SPEAK speech-coding strategy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl1995; 104(suppl 166): 307–11.
11.
SkinnerMWHoldenLKHoldenTADemorestME. Comparison of procedures for obtaining thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels with the Nucleus cochlear implant system. J Speech Hear Res1995; 38: 677–89.
12.
CarhartRJergerJ. Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. J Speech Hear Disord1959; 24: 330–45.
13.
DormanMFSmithLMDankowskiKMcCandlessGParkinJL. Long-term measures of electrode impedance and auditory thresholds for the Ineraid cochlear implant. J Speech Hear Res1992; 35: 1126–30.
14.
SpivakLGWaltzmanSB. Performance of cochlear implant patients as a function of time. J Speech Hear Res1990; 33: 511–9.
15.
ShapiroWWaltzmanS. Changes in electrical thresholds over time in young children implanted with the Nucleus cochlear prosthesis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl1995; 104 (suppl 166): 177–8.
16.
SunJCSkinnerMWLiuSYHuangTS. Effect of speech processor program modifications on cochlear implant recipients' threshold and maximum acceptable loudness levels. Am J Audiol1999; 8: 128–36.
17.
SkinnerMW. Optimization of benefit from a cochlear implant by a multidisciplinary team. Jpn J Logoped Phoniatr1999; 40(2): 156–63.
18.
HughesMLVander WerffKRBrownCJ. A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in Nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear2001; 22: 471–86.
19.
SkinnerMWHoldenLKHoldenTADemorestME. Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant recipients' thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels. J Am Acad Audiol2000; 11: 203–13.
20.
ShannonRV. Threshold and loudness functions for pulsatile stimulation of cochlear implants. Hear Res1985; 18: 135–43.
21.
ChatterjeeM. Temporal mechanisms underlying recovery from forward masking in multielectrode-implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am1999; 105: 1853–63.
22.
ShepherdRKJavelE. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. II. Effect of stimulus waveshape on single fibre response properties. Hear Res1999; 130: 171–88.
23.
SkinnerMWHoldenLKWhitfordLAPlantKLPsarrosCHoldenTA. Speech recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults. Ear Hear2002; 23: 207–23.
24.
SkinnerMWHoldenLKHoldenTADemorestME. Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant. J Speech Lang Hear Res1999; 42: 814–28.
25.
SkinnerMWHoldenLKHoldenTADemorestMEFourakisMS. Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am1997; 101: 3766–82.
26.
HoldenLKSkinnerMWHoldenTADemorestME. Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. Ear Hear2002; 23: 463–76.
27.
JamesCJSkinnerMWMartinLF. An investigation of input level range for the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: Speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings. Ear Hear2003; 24: 157–74.
28.
VandaliAEWhitfordLAPlantKLClarkGM. Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: Using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear2000; 21: 608–24.
