Understanding the effect of noise on electrical stimulation sequences in cochlear implants and its impact on speech intelligibility

The present study investigates the most important factors that limit the intelligibility of the cochlear implant (CI) processed speech in noisy environments. The electrical stimulation sequences provided in CIs are affected by the noise in the following three manners. First of all, the natural gaps in the speech are filled, which distorts the low-frequency ON/OFF modulations of the speech signal. Secondly, speech envelopes are distorted to include modulations of both speech and noise. Lastly, the N-of-M type of speech coding strategies may select the noise dominated channels instead of the dominant speech channels at low signal-to-noise ratio's (SNRs). Different stimulation sequences are tested with CI subjects to study how these three noise effects individually limit the intelligibility of the CI processed speech. Tests are also conducted with normal hearing (NH) subjects using vocoded speech to identify any significant differences in the noise reduction requirements and speech distortion limitations between the two subject groups. Results indicate that compared to NH subjects CI subjects can tolerate significantly lower levels of steady state speech shaped noise in the speech gaps but at the same time can tolerate comparable levels of distortions in the speech segments. Furthermore, modulations in the stimulus current level have no effect on speech intelligibility as long as the channel selection remains ideal. Finally, wrong maxima selection together with the introduction of noise in the speech gaps significantly degrades the intelligibility. At low SNRs wrong maxima selection introduces interruptions in the speech and makes it difficult to fuse noisy and interrupted speech signals into a coherent speech stream.

[1]  Daniel Pressnitzer,et al.  Intelligibility of interrupted and interleaved speech for normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implantees , 2010, Hearing Research.

[2]  S Hellman,et al.  Effects of noise and noise suppression on speech perception by cochlear implant users. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

[3]  P Seligman,et al.  Architecture of the Spectra 22 speech processor. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[4]  Martin Cooke,et al.  A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  P. Loizou,et al.  Factors influencing intelligibility of ideal binary-masked speech: implications for noise reduction. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Q Summerfield,et al.  The contribution of waveform interactions to the perception of concurrent vowels. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Peter Vary,et al.  Digital Speech Transmission: Enhancement, Coding and Error Concealment , 2006 .

[8]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  THE PERCEPTION OF SPEECH IN FLUCTUATING NOISE , 1993 .

[9]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Coding of Sounds in the Auditory System and Its Relevance to Signal Processing and Coding in Cochlear Implants , 2003, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

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

[11]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Michael F Dorman,et al.  A comparison of the speech understanding provided by acoustic models of fixed-channel and channel-picking signal processors for cochlear implants. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[13]  Stefan J. Mauger,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of Signal-to-Noise Ratio–Based Noise Reduction in Nucleus® Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2011, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  DeLiang Wang,et al.  Speech segregation based on sound localization , 2001, IJCNN'01. International Joint Conference on Neural Networks. Proceedings (Cat. No.01CH37222).

[16]  Thomas Baer,et al.  Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing‐impaired and normally hearing people , 1997 .

[17]  Pam W. Dawson,et al.  Perceptually optimized gain function for cochlear implant signal-to-noise ratio based noise reduction. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Blake S. Wilson,et al.  Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future , 2008, Hearing Research.

[19]  Yi Hu,et al.  A new sound coding strategy for suppressing noise in cochlear implants. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Philipos C Loizou,et al.  Factors influencing glimpsing of speech in noise. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Marc Moonen,et al.  Speech Understanding Performance of Cochlear Implant Subjects Using Time–Frequency Masking-Based Noise Reduction , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[22]  Michael K. Qin,et al.  Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  DeLiang Wang,et al.  Pitch-based monaural segregation of reverberant speech. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  S. Bacon,et al.  The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[25]  DeLiang Wang,et al.  Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Q. Fu,et al.  Spectral subtraction-based speech enhancement for cochlear implant patients in background noise. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  C. Hwang,et al.  Comparison of Mandarin tone and speech perception between advanced combination encoder and continuous interleaved sampling speech-processing strategies in children. , 2012, American journal of otolaryngology.

[28]  Colleen Psarros,et al.  Speech Recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS Speech Coding Strategies in Newly Implanted Adults , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[29]  Astrid van Wieringen,et al.  Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests , 2011, International journal of audiology.

[30]  S. Rosen,et al.  Uncomodulated glimpsing in "checkerboard" noise. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  P.C. Laizou,et al.  Signal-processing techniques for cochlear implants , 1999, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine.

[32]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Lauren Calandruccio,et al.  Determination of the Potential Benefit of Time-Frequency Gain Manipulation , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[34]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[37]  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.

[38]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The Intelligibility of Interrupted Speech , 1948 .

[39]  Yi Hu,et al.  Subspace algorithms for noise reduction in cochlear implants. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  B C Moore,et al.  Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.