Objective Identification of Simulated Cochlear Implant Settings in Normal-Hearing Listeners Via Auditory Cortical Evoked Potentials

Objectives: Providing cochlear implant (CI) patients the optimal signal processing settings during mapping sessions is critical for facilitating their speech perception. Here, we aimed to evaluate whether auditory cortical event-related potentials (ERPs) could be used to objectively determine optimal CI parameters. Design: While recording neuroelectric potentials, we presented a set of acoustically vocoded consonants (aKa, aSHa, and aNa) to normal-hearing listeners (n = 12) that simulated speech tokens processed through four different combinations of CI stimulation rate and number of spectral maxima. Parameter settings were selected to feature relatively fast/slow stimulation rates and high/low number of maxima; 1800 pps/20 maxima, 1800/8, 500/20 and 500/8. Results: Speech identification and reaction times did not differ with changes in either the number of maxima or stimulation rate indicating ceiling behavioral performance. Similarly, we found that conventional univariate analysis (analysis of variance) of N1 and P2 amplitude/latency failed to reveal strong modulations across CI-processed speech conditions. In contrast, multivariate discriminant analysis based on a combination of neural measures was used to create “neural confusion matrices” and identified a unique parameter set (1800/8) that maximally differentiated speech tokens at the neural level. This finding was corroborated by information transfer analysis which confirmed these settings optimally transmitted information in listeners’ neural and perceptual responses. Conclusions: Translated to actual implant patients, our findings suggest that scalp-recorded ERPs might be useful in determining optimal signal processing settings from among a closed set of parameter options and aid in the objective fitting of CI devices.

[1]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat: doing phonetics by computer , 2003 .

[2]  M. Dorman,et al.  The influence of a sensitive period on central auditory development in children with unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants , 2005, Hearing Research.

[3]  T. Picton,et al.  The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: a review and an analysis of the component structure. , 1987, Psychophysiology.

[4]  Elizabeth D. Casserly,et al.  Effects of real-time cochlear implant simulation on speech production. , 2015, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Benjamin Munson,et al.  Patterns of phoneme perception errors by listeners with cochlear implants as a function of overall speech perception ability. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Blake C Papsin,et al.  Atypical cortical responses underlie poor speech perception in children using cochlear implants , 2005, Neuroreport.

[7]  Robert V. Shannon,et al.  Effect of Stimulation Rate on Cochlear Implant Users’ Phoneme, Word and Sentence Recognition in Quiet and in Noise , 2010, Audiology and Neurotology.

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

[9]  K. Tremblay Central auditory plasticity , 2003 .

[10]  M. Dorman,et al.  Minimization of cochlear implant stimulus artifact in cortical auditory evoked potentials , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[11]  P. Abbas,et al.  The Effect of Changes in Stimulus Level on Electrically Evoked Cortical Auditory Potentials , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[12]  Fawen Zhang,et al.  Recovery function of the late auditory evoked potential in cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2009, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[13]  Wen-Pin Chang,et al.  Middle and Late Latency ERP Components Discriminate between Adults, Typical Children, and Children with Sensory Processing Disorders , 2009, Front. Integr. Neurosci..

[14]  David A. Medler,et al.  Neural correlates of sensory and decision processes in auditory object identification , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[15]  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.

[16]  C. Sandman,et al.  The auditory event-related potential is a stable and reliable measure in elderly subjects over a 3 year period , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[17]  Claude Alain,et al.  Age-related changes in the subcortical–cortical encoding and categorical perception of speech , 2014, Neurobiology of Aging.

[18]  Samuel R Atcherson,et al.  Applying a subtraction technique to minimize cochlear implant artifact with soundfield and direct audio input stimulations , 2011, Cochlear implants international.

[19]  Fawen Zhang,et al.  The adaptive pattern of the late auditory evoked potential elicited by repeated stimuli in cochlear implant users , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[20]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  A high rate n-of-m speech processing strategy for the first generation Clarion cochlear implant , 2009, International journal of audiology.

[21]  Michael W. Weiss,et al.  Coordinated plasticity in brainstem and auditory cortex contributes to enhanced categorical speech perception in musicians , 2014, The European journal of neuroscience.

[22]  M. Dorman,et al.  A Sensitive Period for the Development of the Central Auditory System in Children with Cochlear Implants: Implications for Age of Implantation , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[23]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[24]  D. Cicchetti Guidelines, Criteria, and Rules of Thumb for Evaluating Normed and Standardized Assessment Instruments in Psychology. , 1994 .

[25]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Features of stimulation affecting tonal-speech perception: implications for cochlear prostheses. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Nina Kraus,et al.  Neurophysiology of Cochlear Implant Users I: Effects of Stimulus Current Level and Electrode Site on the Electrical ABR, MLR, and N1-P2 Response , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[27]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear implant artifact attenuation in late auditory evoked potentials: A single channel approach , 2013, Hearing Research.

[28]  Claude Alain,et al.  Musical Training Orchestrates Coordinated Neuroplasticity in Auditory Brainstem and Cortex to Counteract Age-Related Declines in Categorical Vowel Perception , 2015, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[29]  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.

[30]  Anu Sharma,et al.  A sensitive period for cochlear implantation in deaf children , 2011, The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.

[31]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Human auditory evoked potentials. I. Evaluation of components. , 1974, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[32]  Curtis J. Billings,et al.  Aided cortical auditory evoked potentials in response to changes in hearing aid gain , 2011, International journal of audiology.

[33]  T. Picton,et al.  A method for removing cochlear implant artifact , 2010, Hearing Research.

[34]  A. Krishnan,et al.  Brainstem pitch representation in native speakers of Mandarin is less susceptible to degradation of stimulus temporal regularity , 2010, Brain Research.

[35]  Michelle R. Molis,et al.  Cortical Encoding of Signals in Noise: Effects of Stimulus Type and Recording Paradigm , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[36]  T. Picton,et al.  Human auditory sustained potentials. I. The nature of the response. , 1978, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[37]  Gavin M. Bidelman,et al.  Functional changes in inter- and intra-hemispheric cortical processing underlying degraded speech perception , 2016, NeuroImage.

[38]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[39]  J. Gabrieli,et al.  Functional and morphometric brain dissociation between dyslexia and reading ability , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[40]  B. Martin,et al.  Can the acoustic change complex be recorded in an individual with a cochlear implant? Separating neural responses from cochlear implant artifact. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[41]  Anja Roye,et al.  Effects of age-related hearing loss and background noise on neuromagnetic activity from auditory cortex , 2014, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[42]  Audio-visual consonant recognition with the 3M/House cochlear implant. , 1990, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[43]  Gavin M. Bidelman,et al.  Effects of language experience and stimulus context on the neural organization and categorical perception of speech , 2015, NeuroImage.

[44]  J. Bourke,et al.  Substrate ablation of ventricular tachycardia in structural heart disease: a new dimension? , 2011, European heart journal.

[45]  P C Loizou,et al.  On the number of channels needed to understand speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  Kerrie L Plant,et al.  Parameter selection and programming recommendations for the ACE and CIS speech-processing strategies in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system , 2002, Cochlear implants international.

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

[48]  Katrina Agung,et al.  The use of cortical auditory evoked potentials to evaluate neural encoding of speech sounds in adults. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[49]  P. Chauvel,et al.  Identification Reaction Times of Voiced/Voiceless Continua: A Right-Ear Advantage for VOT Values near the Phonetic Boundary , 2000, Brain and Language.

[50]  G. Bidelman Towards an optimal paradigm for simultaneously recording cortical and brainstem auditory evoked potentials , 2015, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[51]  R. V. Shannon,et al.  Evoked cortical activity and speech recognition as a function of the number of simulated cochlear implant channels , 2009, Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

[53]  E. Chang,et al.  Categorical Speech Representation in Human Superior Temporal Gyrus , 2010, Nature Neuroscience.

[54]  N. Kraus,et al.  Cortical‐evoked potentials reflect speech‐in‐noise perception in children , 2010, The European journal of neuroscience.

[55]  N. Kraus,et al.  What subcortical–cortical relationships tell us about processing speech in noise , 2011, The European journal of neuroscience.

[56]  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.

[57]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Spectral and Temporal Cues in Cochlear Implant Speech Perception , 2006, Ear and hearing.

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

[59]  Claude Alain,et al.  Tracing the emergence of categorical speech perception in the human auditory system , 2013, NeuroImage.

[60]  T. Picton,et al.  Evoked potential audiometry. , 1976, The Journal of otolaryngology.

[61]  M. Dorman,et al.  Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[62]  M F Dorman,et al.  Acoustic cues for consonant identification by patients who use the Ineraid cochlear implant. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[63]  M. Scherg,et al.  Intracerebral Sources of Human Auditory-Evoked Potentials , 1999, Audiology and Neurotology.

[64]  H. G. Vaughan,et al.  Cortical responses to speech sounds and their formants in normal infants: maturational sequence and spatiotemporal analysis. , 1989, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[65]  G. A. Miller,et al.  An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants , 1955 .

[66]  K A Do,et al.  Discriminant Analysis of Event‐Related Potential Curves Using Smoothed Principal Components , 1999, Biometrics.

[67]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[68]  F. Zeng,et al.  Comparison of Bimodal and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users on Speech Recognition With Competing Talker, Music Perception, Affective Prosody Discrimination, and Talker Identification , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[69]  Robert V Shannon,et al.  Effects of Stimulation Rate on Speech Recognition with Cochlear Implants , 2005, Audiology and Neurotology.

[70]  A. Snik,et al.  Speech-evoked cortical potentials recognition in cochlear implant users and speech , 2001, Scandinavian audiology.

[71]  O. Sporns,et al.  Organization, development and function of complex brain networks , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[72]  Mario A Svirsky,et al.  Information transfer analysis: a first look at estimation bias. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[73]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[74]  M F Dorman,et al.  The recognition of vowels produced by men, women, boys, and girls by cochlear implant patients using a six-channel CIS processor. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[75]  Suzanne C. Purdy,et al.  Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users , 2005, Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

[77]  J. Snyder,et al.  Changes in auditory cortex parallel rapid perceptual learning. , 2006, Cerebral cortex.

[78]  P. Souza,et al.  Effects of age and age-related hearing loss on the neural representation of speech cues , 2003, Clinical Neurophysiology.