Assessing temporal modulation sensitivity using electrically evoked auditory steady state responses

Temporal cues are important for cochlear implant (CI) users when listening to speech. Users with greater sensitivity to temporal modulations show better speech recognition and modifications to stimulation parameters based on modulation sensitivity have resulted in improved speech understanding. Behavioural measures of temporal sensitivity require cooperative participants and a large amount of time. These limitations have motivated the desire for an objective measure with which to appraise temporal sensitivity for CI users. Electrically evoked auditory steady state responses (EASSRs) are neural responses to periodic electrical stimulation that have been used to predict threshold (T) levels. In this study we evaluate the use of EASSRs as a tool for assessing temporal modulation sensitivity. Modulation sensitivity was assessed behaviourally using modulation detection thresholds (MDTs) for a 20 Hz rate. On the same stimulation sites, EASSRS were measured using sinusoidally amplitude modulated pulse trains at 4 and 40 Hz. Measurements were taken using a bipolar configuration on 12 electrode pairs over 5 participants. Results showed that EASSR amplitudes and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) were significantly related to the MDTs. Larger EASSRs corresponded with sites of improved modulation sensitivity. This relation was driven by across-subject variation. This result indicates that EASSRs may be used as an objective measure of site-specific temporal sensitivity for CI users.

[1]  R. Burkard.  Human Auditory Evoked Potentials , 2010 .

[2]  Jonathan Z. Simon,et al.  Denoising based on spatial filtering , 2008, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[3]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Acoustic temporal modulation detection and speech perception in cochlear implant listeners. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Improved Electrically Evoked Auditory Steady-State Response Thresholds in Humans , 2012, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[5]  L M Collins,et al.  Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  R. Klinke,et al.  HEARING — Physiological Bases and Psychophysics , 1983, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[7]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Using Temporal Modulation Sensitivity to Select Stimulation Sites for Processor MAPs in Cochlear Implant Listeners , 2013, Audiology and Neurotology.

[8]  S. Makeig,et al.  A 40-Hz auditory potential recorded from the human scalp. , 1981, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  G M Clark,et al.  The Automated Prediction of Hearing Thresholds in Sleeping Subjects Using Auditory Steady‐State Evoked Potentials , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[10]  T W Picton,et al.  Multiple auditory steady-state responses (MASTER): stimulus and recording parameters. , 1998, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[11]  Jan Wouters,et al.  APEX 3: a multi-purpose test platform for auditory psychophysical experiments , 2008, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[12]  John C. Middlebrooks,et al.  Cochlear implant electrode configuration effects on activation threshold and tonotopic selectivity , 2008, Hearing Research.

[13]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Auditory Steady State Cortical Responses Indicate Deviant Phonemic-Rate Processing in Adults With Dyslexia , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[15]  M. Scherg,et al.  Intracerebral Sources of Human Auditory Steady-State Responses , 2004, Brain Topography.

[16]  Bryan E Pfingst.  Effects of electrode configuration on cochlear implant modulation detection thresholds. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Annelies Bockstael,et al.  Auditory steady-state responses in normal hearing adults: A test-retest reliability study , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[18]  Heleen Luts,et al.  Comparison of MASTER and AUDERA for measurement of auditory steady-state responses Comparación de MASTER y AUDERA para la medición de las respuestas auditivas de estado estable , 2005, International journal of audiology.

[19]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Across-site patterns of modulation detection in listeners with cochlear implants. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Electrically Evoked Auditory Steady State Responses in Cochlear Implant Users , 2010, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[21]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Identifying Cochlear Implant Channels With Poor Electrode-Neuron Interfaces: Electrically Evoked Auditory Brain Stem Responses Measured With the Partial Tripolar Configuration , 2011, Ear and hearing.

[22]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Identifying Cochlear Implant Channels with Poor Electrode-Neuron Interface: Partial Tripolar, Single-Channel Thresholds and Psychophysical Tuning Curves , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[23]  Bryan E. Pfingst,et al.  Across-Site Threshold Variation in Cochlear Implants: Relation to Speech Recognition , 2004, Audiology and Neurotology.

[24]  R. Shannon,et al.  Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Cortical auditory steady-state responses to low modulation rates , 2009, International journal of audiology.

[26]  Colette M. McKay,et al.  Temporal modulation transfer functions in cochlear implantees using a method that limits overall loudness cues , 2012, Hearing Research.

[27]  Zachary M. Smith,et al.  Examining the Electro-Neural Interface of Cochlear Implant Users Using Psychophysics, CT Scans, and Speech Understanding , 2014, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[28]  R. Plomp.  The Role of Modulation in Hearing , 1983 .

[29]  Ning Zhou,et al.  Effects of Site-Specific Level Adjustments on Speech Recognition With Cochlear Implants , 2014, Ear and hearing.

[30]  Terence W. Picton,et al.  Human Auditory Steady-State Responses to Tones Independently Modulated in Both Frequency and Amplitude , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[31]  Erik Edwards,et al.  Syllabic (∼2–5 Hz) and fluctuation (∼1–10 Hz) ranges in speech and auditory processing , 2013, Hearing Research.

[32]  Chris van den Honert,et al.  Effect of electrode configuration on psychophysical forward masking in cochlear implant listeners. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Astrid van Wieringen,et al.  LIST and LINT: Sentences and numbers for quantifying speech understanding in severely impaired listeners for Flanders and the Netherlands , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[34]  Ingo Fründ,et al.  Inference for psychometric functions in the presence of nonstationary behavior. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[35]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Across-site patterns of modulation detection: relation to speech recognition. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  H. Levitt.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  P J Abbas,et al.  Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: data from human cochlear implant users. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  Steven Greenberg,et al.  Speaking in shorthand - A syllable-centric perspective for understanding pronunciation variation , 1999, Speech Commun..

[39]  Paul J. Abbas,et al.  The clinical application of potentials evoked from the peripheral auditory system , 2008, Hearing Research.

[40]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  B. Moore,et al.  Benefit of high-rate envelope cues in vocoder processing: effect of number of channels and spectral region. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  T. Picton,et al.  Human auditory steady-state responses: Respuestas auditivas de estado estable en humanos , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[43]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Contribution of very low amplitude-modulation rates to intelligibility in a competing-speech task (L). , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  Jian Yu,et al.  A relation between electrode discrimination and amplitude modulation detection by cochlear implant listeners. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[45]  Colette M. McKay,et al.  Amplitude Modulation and Loudness in Cochlear Implantees , 2010, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[46]  Peter F. Assmann,et al.  The Perception of Speech Under Adverse Conditions , 2004 .

[47]  Terence W Picton,et al.  Auditory Steady-State Responses and Word Recognition Scores in Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Adults , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[48]  Q. Fu.  Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users , 2002, Neuroreport.

[49]  A. Beynon,et al.  Pre-, Per- and Postoperative Factors Affecting Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: A New Conceptual Model over Time , 2012, PloS one.