Assessing the pitch structure associated with multiple rates and places for cochlear implant users.

Cochlear implant subjects continue to experience difficulty understanding speech in noise and performing pitch-based musical tasks. Acoustic model studies have suggested that transmitting additional fine structure via multiple stimulation rates is a potential mechanism for addressing these issues [Nie et al., IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 52, 64-73 (2005); Throckmorton et al., Hear. Res. 218, 30-42 (2006)]; however, results from preliminary cochlear implant studies have been less compelling. Multirate speech processing algorithms previously assumed a place-dependent pitch structure in that a basal electrode would always elicit a higher pitch percept than an apical electrode, independent of stimulation rate. Some subjective evidence contradicts this assumption [H. J. McDermott and C. M. McKay, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 1622-1630 (1997); R. V. Shannon, Hear. Res. 11, 157-189 (1983)]. The purpose of this study is to test the hypothesis that the introduction of multiple rates may invalidate the tonotopic pitch structure resulting from place-pitch alone. The SPEAR3 developmental speech processor was used to collect psychophysical data from five cochlear implant users to assess the tonotopic structure for stimuli presented at two rates on all active electrodes. Pitch ranking data indicated many cases where pitch percepts overlapped across electrodes and rates. Thus, the results from this study suggest that pitch-based tuning across rate and electrode may be necessary to optimize performance of a multirate sound processing strategy in cochlear implant subjects.

[1]  Dirk Van Compernolle,et al.  Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Andrea Nobbe,et al.  Pitch perception and signal processing in electric hearing (Tonhöhenwahrnehmung und Signalverarbeitung bei elektrischem Hören) , 2004 .

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

[4]  M. Dorman,et al.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  G M Clark,et al.  Absolute identification of electric pulse rates and electrode positions by cochlear implant patients. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  H J McDermott,et al.  The perceptual dimensions of single-electrode and nonsimultaneous dual-electrode stimuli in cochlear implantees. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  D K Eddington,et al.  Place and periodicity pitch by stimulation of multiple scala tympani electrodes in deaf volunteers. , 1978, Transactions - American Society for Artificial Internal Organs.

[8]  H J McDermott,et al.  Pitch ranking with nonsimultaneous dual-electrode electrical stimulation of the cochlea. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Leslie M. Collins,et al.  Acoustic model investigation of a multiple carrier frequency algorithm for encoding fine frequency structure: Implications for cochlear implants , 2006, Hearing Research.

[10]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Temporal pitch in electric hearing , 2002, Hearing Research.

[11]  D W Schwarz,et al.  Melody recognition and musical interval perception by deaf subjects stimulated with electrical pulse trains through single cochlear implant electrodes. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Gail S Donaldson,et al.  Place-pitch discrimination of single- versus dual-electrode stimuli by cochlear implant users (L). , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Mark Downing,et al.  Using Current Steering to Increase Spectral Resolution in CII and HiRes 90K Users , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Leslie M. Collins,et al.  A Comparison of Two Loudness Balancing Tasks in Cochlear Implant Subjects Using Bipolar Stimulation , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[15]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Electrode ranking of "place pitch" and speech recognition in electrical hearing. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Robert Alexander Fearn,et al.  MUSIC AND PITCH PERCEPTION OF COCHLEAR IMPLANT RECIPIENTS , 2001 .

[18]  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.

[20]  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.

[21]  J. Knutson,et al.  The effects of familiarity and complexity on appraisal of complex songs by cochlear implant recipients and normal hearing adults. , 2003, Journal of music therapy.

[22]  H J McDermott,et al.  Musical pitch perception with electrical stimulation of the cochlea. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  L H Mens,et al.  Predictors of cochlear implant performance. , 1999, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[24]  M. Kendall,et al.  ON THE METHOD OF PAIRED COMPARISONS , 1940 .

[25]  Q J Fu,et al.  Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Encoding frequency Modulation to improve cochlear implant performance in noise , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[27]  Hugh J. McDermott Music Perception with Cochlear Implants: A Review , 2004, Trends in amplification.

[28]  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.

[29]  R. Shannon,et al.  Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  L M Collins,et al.  Comparison of electrode discrimination, pitch ranking, and pitch scaling data in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. , 1997, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  Graeme M. Clark,et al.  Factors Predicting Postoperative Sentence Scores in Postlinguistically Deaf Adult Cochlear Implant Patients , 1992, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.