Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system

This is a publisher’s version of an article published in Ear and Hearing 2000. This version is reproduced with permission of Lippincott Wilkins & Williams.Objective: To investigate the effect of varying electrical stimulation rate on speech comprehension by cochlear implant users, while keeping the number of stimulated channels constant. Design: Three average rates of electrical stimulation,250, 807, and 1615 pulses per second per channel (pps/ch), were compared using a speech processing strategy that employed an electrode selection technique similar to that used in the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor strategy (McDermott, McKay,& Vandali, 1992; McDermott & Vandali, Reference Note 1; McKay, McDermott, Vandali, & Clark, 1991)and the Spectral Peak strategy (Skinner et al., 1994;Whitford et al., 1995). Speech perception tests with five users of the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system were conducted over a 21-wk period. Subjects were given take-home experience with each rate condition. A repeated ABC evaluation protocol with alternating order was employed so as to account for learning effects and to minimize order effects. Perception of open-set monosyllabic words in quiet and open-set sentences at signal to noise ratios ranging from +20 to 0 dB, depending on the subject’s ability, were tested. A comparative performance questionnaire was also administered. Results: No statistical differences in group performance between the 250 and 807 pps/ch rates were observed in any of the speech perception tests. However, significantly poorer group performance was observed for the 1615 pps/ch rate for some tests due predominantly to the results of one subject. Analysis of individual scores showed considerable variation across subjects. For some subjects, one or more of the three rate conditions evaluated provided benefits on some speech perception tasks. The results of the comparative performance questionnaire indicated a preference for the 250 and 807pps/ch rates over the 1615 pps/ch rate for most listening situations. Conclusions: For the speech processing strategy, implant system, and subjects evaluated in this study, the group results indicated that the use of electrical stimulation rates higher than 250 pps/ch (up to 1615 pps/ch) generally provided no significant improvement to speech comprehension. However, individual results indicated that perceptual