Influence of a shift in frequency distribution and analysis rate on phoneme intelligibility in noisy environments for simulated bilateral cochlear implants

Abstract A model was developed to simulate acoustically sound perception through a cochlear implant (CI), in order to evaluate the effects of a spectral shift and analysis rate on speech recognition in quiet and noise. In the current study, we considered two analysis rates, 250 Hz and 500 Hz, and two CI modes: Symmetric Bilateral Cochlear Implant (SBCI) and Shifted Bilateral Cochlear Implant (ShBCI). Processing and coding strategies used in this model were adapted from the Digisonic SP CI, manufactured by Neurelec. Intelligibility of speech signals processed to simulate different analysis rates and CI modes were assessed by a group of fifty normal-hearing subjects. The analysis rate was simulated by varying the overlap between successive analysis frames using a narrow band vocoder. With the SBCI mode, both ears were stimulated with the same signal (the same frequency filters were used). With the ShBCI mode, the filters were shifted in frequency (between the two ears). All the conditions were tested in quiet and in noisy environment with three different Signals to Noise Ratios (SNR). The database testing procedure used in this experimentation involved 3-phoneme words selected from the French Lafon’s lists. Speech signals were corrupted by addition of speech multi-talker babble noise. Results showed a significant effect of CI mode, of analysis rate and of SNR. The analysis rate effect was small in quiet and significant in noisy environments. The 500 Hz analysis rate led to better performances than the 250 Hz. Higher performances were also observed with the ShBCI mode in noisy environments. Results were mainly consistent with findings obtained from previous cochlear implant studies which suggest that CI users may perform better with a shifted bilateral stimulation in noisy environments, and with a higher analysis rate.

[1]  Kerrie Plant,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of Higher Stimulation Rates in the Nucleus Research Platform 8 System , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[2]  W. Parkinson,et al.  Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. , 1999, The American journal of otology.

[3]  Marc Moonen,et al.  Factors affecting the use of noise-band vocoders as acoustic models for pitch perception in cochlear implants. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Effects of Stimulation Rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE Speech Coding Strategy , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[5]  Komal Arora,et al.  Electrical stimulation rate effects on speech perception in cochlear implants , 2009, International journal of audiology.

[6]  K. Plant,et al.  Speech Perception as a Function of Electrical Stimulation Rate: Using the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[7]  Philipos C Loizou,et al.  Effect of filter spacing on melody recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  M. Dorman,et al.  The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Yi Hu,et al.  Speech recognition by bilateral cochlear implant users in a cocktail-party setting. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  William M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1991, Nature.

[11]  Jennifer Arcaroli,et al.  The Nucleus® 24 Contour™ Cochlear Implant System: Adult Clinical Trial Results , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[12]  H. Hildmann,et al.  Comparison of the TEMPO+ Ear-Level Speech Processor and the CIS PRO+ Body-Worn Processor in Adult MED-EL Cochlear Implant Users , 2001, ORL.

[13]  H. Traunmüller Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale , 1990 .

[14]  Douglas M. Bates,et al.  Linear mixed model implementation in lme4 , 2013 .

[15]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Effect of frequency boundary assignment on vowel recognition with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. , 2004, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[16]  T. Lenarz,et al.  Performance and Preference for ACE Stimulation Rates Obtained with Nucleus RP 8 and Freedom System , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[17]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Comparison of Speech Recognition and Localization Performance in Bilateral and Unilateral Cochlear Implant Users Matched on Duration of Deafness and Age at Implantation , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[18]  J. Lafon Le test phonétique et la mesure de l'audition , 1964 .

[19]  C. A. Verschuur Effect of stimulation rate on speech perception in adult users of the Med-El CIS speech processing strategy Efectos de la tasa de estimulación en la percepción del lenguaje en usuarios adultos de la estrategia de procesamiento Med-El CIS , 2005, International journal of audiology.

[20]  Hugo Fastl,et al.  Psychoacoustics: Facts and Models , 1990 .

[21]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear Implants: Auditory Prostheses and Electric Hearing , 2004, Springer Handbook of Auditory Research.

[22]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Effects of Temporal Fine Structure on the Lateralization of Speech and on Speech Understanding in Noise , 2007, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[23]  Robert F Labadie,et al.  Speech Recognition for Unilateral and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Modes in the Presence of Uncorrelated Noise Sources , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[24]  M F Dorman,et al.  The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  P. Nopp,et al.  Head Shadow, Squelch, and Summation Effects in Bilateral Users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ Cochlear Implant , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[26]  Joseph Roberson,et al.  Nucleus Freedom North American Clinical Trial , 2007, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[27]  Philipos C Loizou,et al.  Speech processing in vocoder-centric cochlear implants. , 2006, Advances in oto-rhino-laryngology.

[28]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[29]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Mimicking the human ear , 1998, IEEE Signal Process. Mag..

[30]  J. Mueller,et al.  Comparison of Music Perception in Bilateral and Unilateral Cochlear Implant Users and Normal-Hearing Subjects , 2009, Audiology and Neurotology.

[31]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Benefits of Bilateral Electrical Stimulation with the Nucleus Cochlear Implant in Adults: 6-Month Postoperative Results , 2004, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[32]  B Kollmeier,et al.  Directivity of binaural noise reduction in spatial multiple noise-source arrangements for normal and impaired listeners. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

[34]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Spectral-Ripple Resolution Correlates with Speech Reception in Noise in Cochlear Implant Users , 2007, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[35]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Fundamental frequency discrimination and speech perception in noise in cochlear implant simulations , 2007, Hearing Research.

[36]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: Effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  Huw Cooper,et al.  Cochlear Implants: A Practical Guide , 2006 .

[38]  R. V. Hoesel Exploring the benefits of bilateral cochlear implants. , 2004 .