Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interactive evolution for cochlear implants fitting

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cochlear implants (CI) are devices that become more and more sophisticated and adapted to the need of patients, but at the same time they become more and more difficult to parameterize. After a deaf patient has been surgically implanted, a specialised medical practitioner has to spend hours during months to precisely fit the implant to the patient. This process is a complex one implying two intertwined tasks: the practitioner has to tune the parameters of the device (optimisation) while the patient’s brain needs to adapt to the new data he receives (learning). This paper presents a study that intends to make the implant more adaptable to environment (auditive ecology) and to simplify the process of fitting. Real experiments on volunteer implanted patients are presented, that show the efficiency of interactive evolution for this purpose.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/easea or http://www.complex.inria.fr/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Complex/SoftwareEASEA

References

  1. Archbold, S., Lutman, M., Marshall, D.: Categories of auditory performance. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl. 116, 312–314 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bäck, T.: Evolutionary Algorithms in Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press, New-York(1996)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bäck, T.: Tutorial on Evolution Strategies. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Gecco’05 (2005)

  4. Blamey, P.J., Pyman, B.C., Gordon, M., Clark, G.M., Brown, A.M., Dowell, R.C., Hollow, R.D.: Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 101(4), 342–348 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Blickle, T., Thiele, L.: A comparison of selection schemes used in evolutionary algorithms. Evol. Comput. 4, 361–394 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bourgeois-République, C., Frachet, B., Collet, P.: Using an IEA to help fitting a cochlear implant. In: GECCO ’05: Proceedings of the 2005 Workshops on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 133–139, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA (2005)

  7. Bourgeois-République, C.: Plateforme de réglage automatique et adaptatif d’implant cochléaire par algorithme évolutionnaire interactif. Phd thesis, University of Bourgogne, Fr (2004)

  8. Bourgeois-République, C., Valigiani, G., Collet, P.: An interactive evolutionary algorithm for cochlear implant fitting: First results. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 231–235 (2005)

  9. Chouard, C.H., Fugain, C., Meyer, B., Lacombe, H.: Long term results of the multichannel cochlear implant. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 405, 387–411 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chouard, C.H., Ouayoun, M., Meyer, B.: Speech coding strategies of the digisonic fully digitized cochlear implant. Acta Otolaryngol 115, 264–268 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen, L.: Time frequency distribution a review. In: Proceedings IEEE vol. 77, pp. 941–981 (1989)

  12. Collet, P., Lutton, E., Schoenauer, M., Louchet, J.: Take it EASEA. In: Schoenauer, M., Deb, K., Rudolph, G., Lutton, E., Yao, X., Merelo, J.J., Schwefel, H.-P. (eds.) Parallel Problem Solving from Nature—PPSN VI 6th International Conference, vol. 1917 of LNCS, pp. 891–901, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2000)

  13. Daubechies, I.: Ten Lectures on Wavelets, vol. 61. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, SIAM, Philadelphia, (1992)

  14. De Jong, K.A.: Evolutionary Computation: A Unified Approach. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2005)

  15. Dorman, M.F., Dankowski, K., McCandless, G., Smith, L.M.: Consonant recognition as a function of the number of channels of stimulation by patients who use the symbion cochlear implant. Ear Hear 10(5), 288–291 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Durant, E.A.: Hearing aid fitting with genetic algorithms. Phd thesis, University of Michigan, USA (2002)

  17. Fishman, G.S.: Monte-Carlo: Concepts, Algorithms and Applications. Springer-Verlag, New York (1996)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Franck, K.H., Xu, L., Pfingst, B.E.: Effect of stimulus level on speech perception with cochlear prostheses. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 4(1), 49–59 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Friesen, L.M., Shannon, R.V., Baskent, D., Wang, X.: Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110(2), 1150–1163 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gallego, S., Frachet, B., Micheyl, C., Truy, E., Collet, L.: Cochlear implant performance and electrically-evoked auditory brain-stem response characteristics. Electroencephalogr. Neurophysiol. Clin. Neurophysiol. 108, 521–525(1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hesse, G.: Programmation des seuils liminaires de l’implant cochléaire MED-EL Tempo+. Thèse de doctorat de médecine, Université de Rennes, Fr (2002)

  22. Jansen, T.: On the analysis of dynamic restart strategies for evolutionary algorithms. In: Merelo-Guervos, J.J., Adamidis, P., Beyer, H.-G., Fernandez-Villacanas, J.-L., Schwefel H.-P. (eds.) Parallel Problem Solving from Nature—PPSN VII, Granada, Spain, vol. 2439, pp. 33–43, Springer, Berlin (2002)

  23. Kawano, A., Seldon, H.L., Clark, G.M., Ramsden, R.T., Raine, C.H. (1998) Intracochlear factors contributing to psychophysical percepts following cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol. 118(3), 313–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kiefer, J., VonIlberg, C., Rupprecht, V., Hubner-Egner, J., Knecht, R.: Optimized speech understanding with the cis sampling speech coding strategy in patients with cochlear implants: Effect of variations in stimulation rate and number of channels. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 109(11), 1009–1020 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Krishnakumar, K.: Micro-genetic algorithms for stationary and non-stationary function optimization. In: SPIE Procedings: Intelligent Control and Adaptive Systems, vol. 1196, pp. 289–296. Philadelphia, PA (1989)

  26. Lafon, J.C.: Le test phonétique et la mesure de l’audition. Ed. Centrex, Eindhoven (1964)

  27. Lawson, D.T., Wilson, B.S., Zerbi, M., Finley, C.C.: Third quaterly progress report: Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Technical Report NIH Contract N01-DC-5-2103 (1996)

  28. Loizou, P., Poroy, O., Dorman, M.: The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108(2), 790–802 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lutton, E., Pilz, M., Levy-Vehel, J.: The fitness map scheme. application to interactive multifractal image denoising. CEC2005, IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation is in Edinburgh, UK, vol. 3, pp. 2278–2285, 2–5 Sept (2005)

  30. Meyer, Y.: Ondelettes et Opérateurs. Hermann, Paris (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Moore, B.C.J.: Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Damage. Oxford Medical Publication, (1995)

  32. Osberger, M.J.: Cochlear implantation in children under the age of two years: Candidacy considerations. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 117, 145–149 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pialoux, P., Chouard, C.H., Meyer, B., Fugain, C.: Indications and results of the multichannel cochlear implant. Acta Otolaryngol 87(3–4), 185–189, Mar–Apr (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Poli, R., Cagnoni, S.: Genetic programming with user-driven selection: Experiments on the evolution of algorithms for image enhancement. In: Koza, J.R., Deb, K., Dorigo, M., Fogel, D.B., Garzon, M., Iba, H., Riolo, R. (eds.) Genetic Programming 1997: Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference, pp. 269–277, Stanford University, CA, USA, (1997) Morgan Kaufmann

  35. Roman, S.: La réhabilitation des sourds profonds par implant cochléaire. Thèse de doctorat de médecine, Université de Marseille, Fr (1998)

  36. Roux, G.: Synthése et réalisation d’études cliniques sur l’implant cochléaire. Thése de doctorat de médecine, Université de Rennes, Fr (2001)

  37. Shannon, R.V., Galvin, J.J. III, Baskent, D.: Holes in hearing. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 3(2), 185–199 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Stickney, G.S., Loizou, P.C., Mishra, L., Assmann, P.F., Shannon, R.V., Opie, J.M.: Effects of electrode design and configuration on channel interactions. Hear. Res. 211, 33–45 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Takagi, H.: Interactive evolutionary computation: System optimization based on human subjective evaluation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES ’98), pp. 1–6, Vienna, Austria (1998)

  40. Takagi, H.: Interactive evolution computation: Fusion of the capabilities of ec optimization and human evaluation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 89, pp. 1275–1296 (2001)

  41. Wall, M.: Matthew’s genetic library. http://www.lancet.mit.edu/ga

  42. Zwolan, T.A., Collins, L.M., Wakefield, G.H.: Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102(6), 3673–3685 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Neurelec (an MXM company, http://www.neurelec.com) who provided us with equipment that made this research possible. This work has partially been funded by the French ANR-RNTS HEVEA project 04T550.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IMB, Institut de Mathématiques de Bordeaux, UMR CNRS 5251, Université de Bordeaux 2, 146 rue Léo Saignat, 33076, Bordeaux cedex, France

    Pierrick Legrand

  2. COMPLEX Team – INRIA Rocquencourt, B.P. 105, 78153, Le Chesnay cedex, France

    Pierrick Legrand, Jacques Levy-Vehel & Evelyne Lutton

  3. LE2I, UMR 5158 CNRS, 9 Avenue A. Savary, B.P. 47870, 21078, Dijon cedex, France

    Claire Bourgeois-Republique

  4. CRT Innotech, 1 Promenade Jean Rostand, 93005, Bobigny cedex, France

    Vincent Péan

  5. Hôpital Avicenne, Service ORL, 125 rte de Stalingrad, 93000, Bobigny, France

    Esther Harboun-Cohen & Bruno Frachet

  6. FDBT-LSIIT, Boulevard Sébastien Brant, BP 10413, 67412, ILLKIRCH Cedex, France

    Pierre Collet

Authors
  1. Pierrick Legrand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claire Bourgeois-Republique
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vincent Péan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Esther Harboun-Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jacques Levy-Vehel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bruno Frachet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Evelyne Lutton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Pierre Collet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierrick Legrand.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Legrand, P., Bourgeois-Republique, C., Péan, V. et al. Interactive evolution for cochlear implants fitting. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 8, 319–354 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-007-9048-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-007-9048-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation