Comparison of Single-Channel and Multi-Channel Cochlear Implants in Terms of Encoding Strategy and Speech Understanding: A Systematic Review

Document Type : Review Articles

Authors
Somayeh Falahzadeh 1
Alireza Golchin-Namdari 2
Adel Gholaminezhad 2
Fatemeh Abdolmajidi 2
1 Instructor, Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
10.22122/jrrs.v12i6.2799
Abstract
Introduction: The term channel in cochlear implant systems refers to the number of stimulation sites within the inner ear or cochlea that determines the range of frequencies or pitches. Unlike single-channel cochlear implant, a multi-channel cochlear implant system divides the incoming signal into various frequency bands, and then, transmits it to various stimulation areas within the inner ear. Having more stimulation sites entails two main goals: 1- As the auditory nerve fibers in the cochlea are tonotopically organized, higher number of electrodes leads to better frequency separation; 2- The areas in the cochlea with inappropriate or no response to electrical stimulation will be avoided in the programming of the device, and the components of the processed input frequency will accompany the stimulation. The goal of the present study was to compare the frequency encoding strategy and its effect on speech understanding of the recipients of single-channel and multi-channel cochlear implant systems.Materials and Methods: Published researches were identified by reviewing scientific databases (PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar) from 1965 to 2016 using relevant keywords. The researches were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria.Results: Single-channel cochlear implants encode the frequency based on the rate of firing of electrical impulses. Multi-channel cochlear implants ‎use the spatial strategy theory for frequency encoding, wherein the different frequencies of the auditory signal are separated and presented in a tonotopic manner along the length of the cochlea via the electrode array. The spatial and temporal encoding of the sound frequencies can be partly replicated by multi-channel stimulation of the auditory nerve. Encoding strategy in multi-channel cochlear implant consists of feature extraction and wave form. The resulting speech understanding of the single-channel and multi-channel systems was also assessed.Conclusion: Based on the findings, it can be concluded that single-channel cochlear implant systems with temporal encoding of frequency do not adequately convey speech information, whereas multi-channel cochlear implants ‎have more similarities to the tonotopic map of the cochlea and provide a better speech understanding in comparison to single channel devices.

Keywords

  1. Fu QJ, Shannon RV. Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105(3): 1889-900.
  2. Tong YC, Clark GM, Blamey PJ, Busby PA, Dowell RC. Psychophysical studies for two multiple-channel cochlear implant patients. J Acoust Soc Am 1982; 71(1): 153-60.
  3. Townshend B, Cotter N, Van Compernolle D, White RL. Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 82(1): 106-15.
  4. McKay CM, McDermott HJ, Carlyon RP. Place and temporal cues in pitch perception: Are they truly independent? Acoust Res Lett Online 2000; 1(1): 25-30.
  5. Tong YC, Blamey PJ, Dowell RC, Clark GM. Psychophysical studies evaluating the feasibility of a speech processing strategy for a multiple-channel cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 1983; 74(1): 73-80.
  6. Galvin JJ 3rd, Fu QJ. Influence of stimulation rate and loudness growth on modulation detection and intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 2009; 250(1-2): 46-54.
  7. Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, Wolford RD, Eddington DK, Rabinowitz WM. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 1991; 352(6332): 236-8.
  8. Kiefer J, Hohl S, Sturzebecher E, Pfennigdorff T, Gstoettner W. Comparison of speech recognition with different speech coding strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and ACE) and their relationship to telemetric measures of compound action potentials in the nucleus CI 24M cochlear implant system. Audiology 2001; 40(1): 32-42.
  9. Koch DB, Osberger MJ, Segel P, Kessler D. HiResolution and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution bionic ear: Using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability. Audiol Neurootol 2004; 9(4): 214-23.
  10. Wilson BS, Dorman MF. Cochlear implants: current designs and future possibilities. J Rehabil Res Dev 2008; 45(5): 695-730.
  11. Perreau A, Tyler RS, Witt SA. The effect of reducing the number of electrodes on spatial hearing tasks for bilateral cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol 2010; 21(2): 110-20.
  12. Caposecco A, Hickson L, Pedley K. Cochlear implant outcomes in adults and adolescents with early-onset hearing loss. Ear Hear 2012; 33(2): 209-20.
  13. Looi V, Mackenzie M, Bird P, Lawrenson R. Quality-of-life outcomes for adult cochlear implant recipients in New Zealand. N Z Med J 2011; 124(1340): 21-34.
  14. Geers AE, Hayes H. Reading, writing, and phonological processing skills of adolescents with 10 or more years of cochlear implant experience. Ear Hear 2011; 32(1 Suppl): 49S-59S.
  15. Hassanzadeh S. Outcomes of cochlear implantation in deaf children of deaf parents: comparative study. J Laryngol Otol 2012; 126(10): 989-94.
  16. Fretz RJ, Fravel RP. Design and function: a physical and electrical description of the 3M House cochlear implant system. Ear Hear 1985; 6(3 Suppl): 14S-9S.
  17. Clark GM, Tong YC, Dowell RC. Comparison of two cochlear implant speech-processing strategies. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1984; 93(2 Pt 1): 127-31.
  18. Zeng FG. Trends in cochlear implants. Trends Amplif 2004; 8(1): 1-34.
  19. Kasturi KS. Signal processing strategies for better melody recognition and improved speech understanding in noise for cochlear implants [Doctoral Dissertation]. Richardson, TX: University of Texas at Dallas; 2006.
  20. Loizou PC. Mimicking the human ear. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 1998; 15(5): 101-30.
  21. Loizou PC. Introduction to cochlear implants. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine 1999; 18(1): 32-42.
  22. Tye-Murray N, Lowder M, Tyler RS. Comparison of the F0F2 and F0F1F2 processing strategies for the Cochlear Corporation cochlear implant. Ear Hear 1990; 11(3): 195-200.
  23. Blamey PJ, Dowell RC, Brown AM, Clark GM, Seligman PM. Vowel and consonant recognition of cochlear implant patients using formant-estimating speech processors. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 82(1): 48-57.
  24. Skinner MW, Holden LK, Holden TA, Dowell RC, Seligman PM, Brimacombe JA, et al. Performance of postlinguistically deaf adults with the Wearable Speech Processor (WSP III) and Mini Speech Processor (MSP) of the Nucleus Multi-Electrode Cochlear Implant. Ear Hear 1991; 12(1): 3-22.
  25. Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 110(2): 1150-63.
  26. Loizou PC, Dorman MF, Tu Z, Fitzke J. Recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of speak-type cochlear implant signal processors. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2000; 185: 67-8.
  27. Dorman MF, Loizou PC, Rainey D. Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 102(4): 2403-11.
  28. Loizou PC, Dorman M, Tu Z. On the number of channels needed to understand speech. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 106(4 Pt 1): 2097-103.
  29. Michelson RP. Electrical stimulation of the human cochlea. A preliminary report. Arch Otolaryngol 1971; 93(3): 317-23.
  30. Danley MJ, Fretz RJ. Design and functioning of the single-electrode cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1982; 91(2 Pt 3): 21-6.
  31. Hochmair ES. An Implantable Current Source for Electrical Nerve Stimulation. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 1980; BME-27(5): 278-80.
  32. Fourcin AJ, Rosen SM, Moore BC, Douek EE, Clarke GP, Dodson H, et al. External electrical stimulation of the cochlea: Clinical, psychophysical, speech-perceptual and histological findings. Br J Audiol 1979; 13(3): 85-107.
  33. Simmons Fb, Epley Jm, Lummis Rc, Guttman N, Frishkopf Ls, Harmon Ld, et al. Auditory nerve: Electrical stimulation in man. Science 1965; 148(3666): 104-6.
  34. Simmons FB. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. Arch Otolaryngol 1966; 84(1): 2-54.
  35. Hochmair-Desoyer IJ, Hochmair ES, Burian K, Fischer RE. Four years of experience with cochlear prostheses. Med Prog Technol 1981; 8(3): 107-19.
  36. Tyler RS. Open-set word recognition with the 3M/Vienna single-channel cochlear implant. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1988; 114(10): 1123-6.
  37. Tahmina Q. Coding strategies for cochlear implants under adverse environments [PhD Dissertation]. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; 2016.
  38. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Technical Report: Cochlear Implants [Online]. [cited 2004]; Available from: URL: http://www.asha.org/policy/TR2004-00041/
  39. Fishman KE, Shannon RV, Slattery WH. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1997; 40(5): 1201-15.
  40. Riss D, Arnoldner C, Baumgartner WD, Kaider A, Hamzavi JS. A new fine structure speech coding strategy: speech perception at a reduced number of channels. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29(6): 784-8.
  41. Mac AB, Hazan V, Prasher D. Speech pattern audiometry in hearing impaired children. Br J Audiol 1999; 33(6): 383-93.
  42. Johnston KE, Verschuur C. A comparison of cochlear implant processing strategies in children using speech pattern audiometry. Cochlear Implants Int 2005; 6(4): 183-96.

Article View 44,682
PDF Download 34,943