Effects of Stimulation Rate, Mode and Level on Modulation Detection by Cochlear Implant Users
Tóm tắt
In cochlear implant (CI) patients, temporal processing is often poorest at low listening levels, making perception difficult for low-amplitude temporal cues that are important for consonant recognition and/or speech perception in noise. It remains unclear how speech processor parameters such as stimulation rate and stimulation mode may affect temporal processing, especially at low listening levels. The present study investigated the effects of these parameters on modulation detection by six CI users. Modulation detection thresholds (MDTs) were measured as functions of stimulation rate, mode, and level. Results show that for all stimulation rate and mode conditions, modulation sensitivity was poorest at quiet listening levels, consistent with results from previous studies. MDTs were better with the lower stimulation rate, especially for quiet-to-medium listening levels. Stimulation mode had no significant effect on MDTs. These results suggest that, although high stimulation rates may better encode temporal information and widen the electrode dynamic range, CI patients may not be able to access these enhanced temporal cues, especially at the lower portions of the dynamic range. Lower stimulation rates may provide better recognition of weak acoustic envelope information.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Bacon SP, Viemeister NF. Temporal modulation transfer functions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Audiology 24:117–134, 1985.
Blamey PJ, Pyman BC, Gordon M, Clark GM, Brown AM, Dowell RC, Hollow RD. Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 101:342–348, 1992.
Brill SM, GstÖttner W, Helms J, Ilberg CV, Baumgartner W, MÜller J, Kiefer J. Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+. Am. J. Otol. 18:S104–S106, 1997.
Brill SM, Hochmair I, Hochmair ES. The importance of stimulation rate in pulsatile stimulation strategies in cochlear implants. Presented at the XXIV International Congress of Audiology, Buenos Aires, 1998a.
Brill SM, Schatzer R, Nopp P, Hochmair I, Hochmair ES. JCIS: CIS with temporally jittering stimulation pulses: effect of jittering amplitude and stimulation rate on speech understanding. Presented at the 4th European Symposium on Paediatric Cochlear Implantation, Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands, 1998b.
Burns EM, Viemeister NF. Played-again SAM: further observations on the pitch of amplitude-modulated noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 70:1655–1660, 1981.
Cazals Y, Pelizzone M, Kasper A, Montandon P. Indication of a relation between speech perception and temporal resolution for cochlear implantees. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 100:893–895, 1991.
Cazals Y, Pelizzone M, Saudan O, Boex C. Low-pass filtering in amplitude modulation detection associated with vowel and consonant identification in subjects with cochlear implants. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 96:2048–2054, 1994.
Chatterjee M. Modulation masking in cochlear implant listeners: envelope versus non seq. tonotopic components. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113:2042–2053, 2003.
Chatterjee M, Oba SI. Across- and within-channel envelope interactions in cochlear implant listeners. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 5:360–375, 2005.
Donaldson GS, Viemeister NF. Intensity discrimination and detection of amplitude modulation in electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108:760–763, 2000.
Drullman R, Festern JM, Plomp R. Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95:1053–1064, 1994a.
Drullman R, Festern JM, Plomp R. Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95:2670–2680, 1994b.
Formby C. Modulation detection by patients with eighth-nerve tumors. J. Speech Hear. Res. 29:413–419, 1986.
Forrest TG, Green DM. Detection of partially filled gaps in noise and the temporal modulation transfer function. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82:1933–1943, 1987.
Franck KH, Xu L, Pfingst BE. Effects of stimulus level on speech perception with cochlear prostheses. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 4:49–59, 2003.
Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Cruz RJ. Effects of stimulation rate on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Audiol. Neuro-otol. 10:169–184, 2005.
Fu QJ. Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. NeuroReport 13:1635–1640, 2002.
Fu QJ, Shannon RV. Effects of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition in cochlear implant users. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107:589–597, 2000.
Fu QJ, Zeng FG. Effects of envelope cues on Mandarin Chinese tone recognition. Asia-Pac. J. Speech Lang. Hear. 5:45–57, 2000.
Fu QJ, Zeng FG, Shannon RV, Soli SD. Importance of tonal envelope cues in Chinese speech recognition. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104:505–510, 1998.
Fu QJ, Chinchilla S, Galvin JJ. The role of spectral and temporal cues in voice gender discrimination by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 254-260, 2004.
Holden LK, Skinner MW, Holden TA, Demorest ME. Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. Ear Hear. 23:463–476, 2002.
Jesteadt W. An adaptive procedure for subjective judgments. Percept. Psychophys. 28:85–88, 1980.
Kreft HA, Donaldson GS, Nelson DA. Effects of pulse rate and electrode array design on intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116:2258–2268, 2004.
Lawson DT, Wilson BS, Zerbi M, Finley CC. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Third Quarterly Progress Report, NIH Contract N01-DC-5-2103, 1996.
Litvak L, Delgutte B, Eddington D. Auditory nerve fiber responses to electric stimulation: modulated and unmodulated pulse trains. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110:368–379, 2001.
Loizou PC, Poroy O, Dorman MF. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108:790–802, 2000.
Middlebrooks JC. Effects of cochlear-implant pulse rate and inter-channel timing on channel interactions and thresholds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116:452–468, 2004.
Middlebrooks JC. Transmission of temporal information from a cochlear implant to the auditory cortex. Abstracts of Association for Research in Otolaryngology 28th Midwinter Meeting, February 2005, Volume 28, 91, 2005.
Morris DJ, Pfingst BE. Effects of electrode configuration and stimulus level on rate and level discrimination with cochlear implants. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 1:211–223, 2000.
Muchnik C, Taitelbaum R, Tene S, Hildesheimer M. Auditory temporal resolution and open speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients. Scand. Audiol. 23:105–109, 1993.
Rubinstein JT, Wilson BS, Finley CC, Abbas PJ. Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hear. Res. 127:108–118, 1999.
Shannon RV. Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91:2156–2164, 1992.
Shannon RV, Colletti V. Evidence from auditory brainstem implants of a modulation-specific auditory pathway that is critical for speech recognition. Abstracts of Association for Research in Otolaryngology 28th Midwinter Meeting, February 2005, Volume 28, 183, 2005.
Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Wygonski J, Kamath V, Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270:303–304, 1995.
Skinner MW. Optimizing cochlear implant speech performance. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl. 191:4–13, 2003.
Turner CW, Souza PE, Forget LN. Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97:2568–2576, 1995.
van Tasell DJ, Soli SD, Kirby VM, Widin GP. Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82:1152–1161, 1987.
van Tasell DJ, Greenfield DG, Logemann JJ, Nelson DA. Temporal cues for consonant recognition: training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 92:1247–1257, 1992.
Vandali AE, Whitford LA, Plant KL, Clark GM. Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear. 21:608-624, 2000.
Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson D, Zerbi M. Temporal representations with cochlear implants. Am. J. Otol. 18:S30–S34, 1997a.
Wilson B, Finley C, Zerbi M, Lawson D, van den Honert C. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. NIH Project N01-DC-5-2103, Seventh Quarterly Progress Report, Neural Prosthesis Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 1997b.
Wojtczak M, Viemeister NF. Intensity discrimination and detection of amplitude modulation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106:1917–1924, 1999.
Wygonski J, Robert M. HEI Nucleus Research Interface (HEINRI) Specification. Internal Materials, 2002.
Xu L, Tsai Y, Pfingst BE. Features of stimulation affecting tonal-speech perception: implications for cochlear prostheses. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 112:247–258, 2002.
Zeng FG, Turner CW. Binaural loudness matches in unilaterally impaired listeners. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 43:565–583, 1991.