title: Comparison of a paired or sequential stimulation paradigm with advanced bionics' high-resolution mode.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Simultaneous stimulation on two channels was investigated with respect to fully sequential stimulation while controlling for the number of channels and the stimulation rate used.
  
  
  METHODS
  Only subjects having at least 6 months' experience with conventional Clarion speech coding strategies (CIS, PPS, or SAS) were included. A counterbalanced cross-over design was used to compare the paired stimulation paradigm to the sequential stimulation paradigm.
  
  
  METHODS
  The investigation was a prospective, within-subject, repeated-measures experiment.
  
  
  METHODS
  The study group consisted of 13 postlingually deafened adult subjects.
  
  
  METHODS
  The following programs were evaluated: 1) 16-channel paired stimulation with 5000 pps per channel; 2) 16-channel sequential stimulation with 2500 pps per channel; and 3) 8-channel sequential stimulation with 5000 pps per channel.
  
  
  METHODS
  Speech perception tests in quiet and noise, Quality Assessment Questionnaire.
  
  
  RESULTS
  On average, both sequential stimulation programs showed comparable results, whereas the program with paired stimulation, on average, provided poorer performance. Several subjects showed a remarkable drop in performance when changing from sequential to paired mode. Although a few subjects showed better performance in quiet when using paired stimulation, they still had poorer performance in noise. A weak trend was found linking the difference between program levels in paired or in sequential stimulation paradigm to the difference in performance with these two settings.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Results indicate that for all subjects in this group sequential stimulation is more appropriate than paired stimulation. Subjective reports, as well as formal speech perception testing, show that the difference between the two paradigms is pronounced, especially when evaluating in the presence of background noise, the test condition more representative of everyday listening.
authors.affiliation: Department of Otolaryngology, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany. buechner@hoerzentrum-hannover.de
authors.forename: Andreas
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Buechner
authors.forename: Carolin
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Frohne-Buechner
authors.forename: Timo
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Stoever
authors.forename: Lutz
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Gaertner
authors.forename: Rolf-Dieter
authors.initials: RD
authors.lastname: Battmer
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Lenarz
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D003054:Cochlear Implants; D018592:Cross-Over Studies; D003638:Deafness / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D004558:Electric Stimulation; D004867:Equipment Design; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012107:Research Design; D013067:Speech Perception; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires