These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: FS4, FS4-p, and FSP: a 4-month crossover study of 3 fine structure sound-coding strategies.
    Author: Riss D, Hamzavi JS, Blineder M, Honeder C, Ehrenreich I, Kaider A, Baumgartner WD, Gstoettner W, Arnoldner C.
    Journal: Ear Hear; 2014; 35(6):e272-81. PubMed ID: 25127325.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to compare two novel fine structure strategies "FS4" and "FS4-p" with the established fine structure processing (FSP) strategy. FS4 provides fine structure information on the apical four-electrode channels. With FS4-p, these electrodes may be stimulated in a parallel manner. The authors evaluated speech perception, sound quality, and subjective preference. DESIGN: A longitudinal crossover study was done on postlingually deafened adults (N = 33) who were using FSP as their default strategy. Each participant was fitted with FS4, FS4-p, and FSP, for 4 months in a randomized and blinded order. After each run, an Adaptive Sentence test in noise (Oldenburger Sentence Test [OLSA]) and a Monosyllable test in quiet (Freiburger Monosyllables) were performed, and subjective sound quality was determined with a Visual Analogue Scale. At the end of the study the preferred strategy was noted. RESULTS: Scores of the OLSA did not reveal any significant differences among the three strategies, but the Freiburger test showed a statistically significant effect (p = 0.03) with slightly worse scores for FS4 (49.7%) compared with FSP (54.3%). Performance of FS4-p (51.8%) was comparable with the other strategies. Both audiometric tests depicted a high variability among subjects. The number of best-performing strategies for each participant individually was as follows: (a) for the OLSA: FSP, N = 10.5; FS4, N = 10.5; and FS4-p, N = 12; and (b) for the Freiburger test: FSP, N = 14; FS4, N = 9; and FS4-p, N = 10. A moderate agreement was found in the best-performing strategies of the Speech tests within the participants. For sound quality, speech in quiet, classical, and pop music were assessed. No significant effects of strategy were found for speech in quiet and classical music, but auditory impression of pop music was rated as more natural in FSP compared with FS4 (p = 0.04). It is interesting that at the end of the study, a majority of the participants favored the new coding strategies over their previous default FSP (FSP, N = 13; FS4, N = 13; FS4-p, N = 7). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, FS4 and FS4-p offer new and further options in audio processor fitting, with similar levels of speech understanding in noise as FSP. This is an interesting result, given that the strategies' presentation of temporal fine structure differs from FSP. At the end of the study, 20 of 33 subjects chose either FS4 or FS4-p over their previous default strategy FSP.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]