ArticleEar and hearing
An Evaluation of the Temporal Integrator Processing Strategy for Cochlear Implants in Comparison to the Clinical Strategy and in Multi-Talker Noise.
Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSpeech perception remains challenging for cochlear-implant recipients in conditions containing background noise. The sound processing strategy of the cochlear implant transforms the acoustic signal into a pattern of electrical stimulation pulses, which are transmitted by the electrode array. Modifications to the sound processing strategy could improve the transmission of information by the cochlear implant, alleviating speech perception difficulties in noise. One such modification, the temporal integrator processing strategy (TIPS), uses a model of temporal masking to identify and remove stimulation pulses that are unlikely to be perceived. In a previous investigation, TIPS significantly improved the perception of continuous interleaved sampling-processed speech in the presence of speech-shaped noise while reducing the power required for stimulation ( Lamping et al. 2020 ). This study extends the previous investigation to include conditions that better reflect everyday listening for cochlear-implant recipients.
designTwo pre-registered double-blind within-participant experiments measured the speech-recognition performance of 12 cochlear implant listeners for sentences before and after TIPS processing. Experiments 1 and 2 investigated TIPS performance against the Continuous Interleaved Sampling or Advanced Combination Encoder baseline speech processing strategies, respectively. Speech-reception thresholds were measured in a speech-shaped noise (in experiment 1) and a multi-talker noise (in experiments 1 and 2), and mean-opinion score speech quality ratings were obtained in quiet (in experiments 1 and 2). In both experiments, all strategies used the subjects' clinical pulse rate, inter-phase gap, phase duration, and ground electrodes, and participants were acclimatized for 10 min before testing each strategy.
resultsIn experiments 1 and 2, the median speech-reception thresholds obtained were comparable across the baseline and TIPS strategies, with no statistical differences noted in either speech-shaped or multi-talker noise. Quality ratings were lower for TIPS when compared to the Continuous Interleaved Sampling strategy ( p = 0.044) but not when compared to the Advanced Combination Encoder strategy, which all participants used as their everyday strategy. In all conditions, TIPS could reduce device power consumption by between 21% and 42%.
conclusionsTIPS could result in substantial power savings, without compromising speech quality or speech intelligibility in noise. Although some individuals demonstrated improved speech-reception thresholds with TIPS, the significant group-level improvement previously found by Lamping et al. (2020 ) was not observed in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.