Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol.  2012 Apr;5(Suppl 1):S89-S92.

Evaluation of the ClearVoice Strategy in Adults Using HiResolution Fidelity 120 Sound Processing

• Kam AC
• Ng IH
• Cheng MM
• Wong TK
• Tong MC

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of ClearVoice strategy on speech perception in noise and in everyday listening situations in Cantonese-speaking cochlear implant users.
METHODS
Twelve experienced adult users of the Harmony implant and HiRes 120 sound processing participated in the study. The study employed a prospective within-subjects design wherein speech recognition in adults using HiRes 120 without ClearVoice turned on (control option) was compared to their performance with HiRes 120 with ClearVoice turned on. Each subject was evaluated with two different ClearVoice gain settings: -12 dB (ClearVoice medium) and -18 dB (ClearVoice high) after one-week of use. The Cantonese hearing in noise test and a questionnaire were used as the outcome measures.
RESULTS
Subjects performed significantly better with ClearVoice medium than with control option in noise. No significant difference in performance was noted among the 3 settings in quiet. Most subjects reported high level of satisfaction with ClearVoice in daily listening situations and preferred to keep ClearVoice on.
CONCLUSION
ClearVoice can help cochlear implant recipients to hear better in noise.

Keyword

Cochlear implantation; Speech recognition in noise

MeSH Terms

Adult
Cochlear Implantation
Cochlear Implants
Hearing
Humans
Noise
Prospective Studies
Speech Perception
Surveys and Questionnaires

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Individual speech recognition scores in quiet.

• 

  Fig. 2 Individual speech recognition scores in noise.

• 

  Fig. 3 Mean speech recognition scores in quiet and in noise. *P<0.05.

• 

  Fig. 4 Distribution of the strength of preference for the preferred program (1, very weak preference; 10, very strong preference).

• 

  Fig. 5 Percentage distribution on ratings on situational preference.

• 

  Fig. 6 Distribution of average ratings on the usefulness of ClearVoice (1, strongly disagree; 7, strongly agree).

Reference

1. Nelson PB, Jin SH, Carney AE, Nelson DA. Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 2. 113(2):961–968. PMID: 12597189.

2. Spriet A, Van Deun L, Eftaxiadis K, Laneau J, Moonen M, van Dijk B, et al. Speech understanding in background noise with the two-microphone adaptive beamformer BEAM in the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear Implant System. Ear Hear. 2007; 2. 28(1):62–72. PMID: 17204899.

3. Wouters J, Vanden Berghe J. Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implantees with a two-microphone monaural adaptive noise reduction system. Ear Hear. 2001; 10. 22(5):420–430. PMID: 11605949.

4. Gifford RH, Revit LJ. Speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in a realistic background noise: effectiveness of preprocessing strategies and external options for improving speech recognition in noise. J Am Acad Audiol. 2010; Jul-Aug. 21(7):441–451. PMID: 20807480.

5. Schafer EC, Thibodeau LM. Speech recognition in noise in children with cochlear implants while listening in bilateral, bimodal, and FM-system arrangements. Am J Audiol. 2006; 12. 15(2):114–126. PMID: 17182876.

6. Schafer EC, Thibodeau LM. Speech recognition abilities of adults using cochlear implants with FM systems. J Am Acad Audiol. 2004; Nov-Dec. 15(10):678–691. PMID: 15646666.

7. Buechner A, Brendel M, Saalfeld H, Litvak L, Frohne-Buechner C, Lenarz T. Results of a pilot study with a signal enhancement algorithm for HiRes 120 cochlear implant users. Otol Neurotol. 2010; 12. 31(9):1386–1390. PMID: 20856160.

8. Wong LL, Soli SD. Development of the Cantonese Hearing In Noise Test (CHINT). Ear Hear. 2005; 6. 26(3):276–289. PMID: 15937409.