Michael F Dorman, Sarah C Natale, Nadine Buczak, Josh Stohl, Francesco Acciai, Andreas Büchner
{"title":"人工耳蜗的音质","authors":"Michael F Dorman, Sarah C Natale, Nadine Buczak, Josh Stohl, Francesco Acciai, Andreas Büchner","doi":"10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aims of this exploratory study were (a) to assess common terms used to describe cochlear implant (CI) sound quality by patients fit with conventional CIs and (b) to compare those descriptors to previously obtained acoustic matches to CI sound quality created by single-sided deaf (SSD) patients for their normal-hearing ear.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>CI patients fit with Advanced Bionics (AB; <i>n</i> = 89), Cochlear Corporation (<i>n</i> = 86), and MED-EL (<i>n</i> = 80) implants were the participants. The patients filled out a questionnaire about CI sound quality for two time points: For the time near activation (T1) from memory and at the time of filling out the questionnaire (T2). The mean CI experience at T2 for the three groups ranged from 4 to 8 years. The questionnaire was composed of 25 adjectives describing sound quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For T1, the most commonly used descriptors were Computer-like, Treble-y, Metallic, and Mickey Mouse-like. A superordinate category of HiPitched (High Pitched) gathered significantly more responses from patients with shorter electrode arrays (AB and Cochlear) than patients with longer arrays (MED-EL). At T2, the most common descriptor was Clear and was chosen by approximately two thirds of the patients. The between-group differences in responses to items in the HiPitched category, present at T1, were absent at T2.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The questionnaire data from conventional CI patients differs from previous sound matching data collected from SSD-CI patients. Alterations to the spectral composition of the signal are less salient to experienced conventional patients than to experienced SSD-CI patients. This is likely due to the absence, for conventional patients, of an exemplar in an NH ear against which to judge CI sound quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":51254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cochlear Implant Sound Quality.\",\"authors\":\"Michael F Dorman, Sarah C Natale, Nadine Buczak, Josh Stohl, Francesco Acciai, Andreas Büchner\",\"doi\":\"10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00678\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aims of this exploratory study were (a) to assess common terms used to describe cochlear implant (CI) sound quality by patients fit with conventional CIs and (b) to compare those descriptors to previously obtained acoustic matches to CI sound quality created by single-sided deaf (SSD) patients for their normal-hearing ear.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>CI patients fit with Advanced Bionics (AB; <i>n</i> = 89), Cochlear Corporation (<i>n</i> = 86), and MED-EL (<i>n</i> = 80) implants were the participants. The patients filled out a questionnaire about CI sound quality for two time points: For the time near activation (T1) from memory and at the time of filling out the questionnaire (T2). The mean CI experience at T2 for the three groups ranged from 4 to 8 years. The questionnaire was composed of 25 adjectives describing sound quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For T1, the most commonly used descriptors were Computer-like, Treble-y, Metallic, and Mickey Mouse-like. A superordinate category of HiPitched (High Pitched) gathered significantly more responses from patients with shorter electrode arrays (AB and Cochlear) than patients with longer arrays (MED-EL). At T2, the most common descriptor was Clear and was chosen by approximately two thirds of the patients. The between-group differences in responses to items in the HiPitched category, present at T1, were absent at T2.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The questionnaire data from conventional CI patients differs from previous sound matching data collected from SSD-CI patients. Alterations to the spectral composition of the signal are less salient to experienced conventional patients than to experienced SSD-CI patients. This is likely due to the absence, for conventional patients, of an exemplar in an NH ear against which to judge CI sound quality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00678\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00678","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本探索性研究的目的是:(a) 评估佩戴传统人工耳蜗的患者描述人工耳蜗(CI)音质的常用术语;(b) 将这些描述术语与之前获得的单侧耳聋(SSD)患者为其正常听力耳朵创建的 CI 音质声学匹配进行比较:方法:参与者包括植入先进仿生公司(AB;n = 89)、科利耳公司(n = 86)和 MED-EL 公司(n = 80)植入体的 CI 患者。患者在两个时间点填写了有关 CI 音质的问卷:在记忆中接近激活时(T1)和填写问卷时(T2)。三组患者在 T2 阶段的平均 CI 使用年限为 4 至 8 年不等。问卷由 25 个描述音质的形容词组成:在 T1,最常用的描述词是电脑音质、高音音质、金属音质和米老鼠音质。较短电极阵列(AB 和耳蜗)的患者对 HiPitched(高音调)这一上位词的回答明显多于较长电极阵列(MED-EL)的患者。在 T2 阶段,最常见的描述词是 "清晰",约有三分之二的患者选择了这一描述词。对 "HiPitched "类项目的回答在 T1 存在组间差异,但在 T2 则不存在:传统 CI 患者的问卷数据与之前从 SSD-CI 患者收集的声音匹配数据有所不同。与有经验的 SSD-CI 患者相比,有经验的传统 CI 患者对信号频谱组成的改变不那么敏感。这很可能是由于传统患者缺乏可用于判断 CI 音质的 NH 耳范例。
Purpose: The aims of this exploratory study were (a) to assess common terms used to describe cochlear implant (CI) sound quality by patients fit with conventional CIs and (b) to compare those descriptors to previously obtained acoustic matches to CI sound quality created by single-sided deaf (SSD) patients for their normal-hearing ear.
Method: CI patients fit with Advanced Bionics (AB; n = 89), Cochlear Corporation (n = 86), and MED-EL (n = 80) implants were the participants. The patients filled out a questionnaire about CI sound quality for two time points: For the time near activation (T1) from memory and at the time of filling out the questionnaire (T2). The mean CI experience at T2 for the three groups ranged from 4 to 8 years. The questionnaire was composed of 25 adjectives describing sound quality.
Results: For T1, the most commonly used descriptors were Computer-like, Treble-y, Metallic, and Mickey Mouse-like. A superordinate category of HiPitched (High Pitched) gathered significantly more responses from patients with shorter electrode arrays (AB and Cochlear) than patients with longer arrays (MED-EL). At T2, the most common descriptor was Clear and was chosen by approximately two thirds of the patients. The between-group differences in responses to items in the HiPitched category, present at T1, were absent at T2.
Conclusions: The questionnaire data from conventional CI patients differs from previous sound matching data collected from SSD-CI patients. Alterations to the spectral composition of the signal are less salient to experienced conventional patients than to experienced SSD-CI patients. This is likely due to the absence, for conventional patients, of an exemplar in an NH ear against which to judge CI sound quality.
期刊介绍:
Mission: JSLHR publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on the normal and disordered processes in speech, language, hearing, and related areas such as cognition, oral-motor function, and swallowing. The journal is an international outlet for both basic research on communication processes and clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, and management of communication disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. JSLHR seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work.
Scope: The broad field of communication sciences and disorders, including speech production and perception; anatomy and physiology of speech and voice; genetics, biomechanics, and other basic sciences pertaining to human communication; mastication and swallowing; speech disorders; voice disorders; development of speech, language, or hearing in children; normal language processes; language disorders; disorders of hearing and balance; psychoacoustics; and anatomy and physiology of hearing.