Speech Perception in Tones and Noise via Cochlear Implants Reveals Influence of Spectral Resolution on Temporal Processing

Under normal conditions, human speech is remarkably robust to degradation by noise and other distortions. However, people with hearing loss, including those with cochlear implants, often experience great difficulty in understanding speech in noisy environments. Recent work with normal-hearing listeners has shown that the amplitude fluctuations inherent in noise contribute strongly to the masking of speech. In contrast, this study shows that speech perception via a cochlear implant is unaffected by the inherent temporal fluctuations of noise. This qualitative difference between acoustic and electric auditory perception does not seem to be due to differences in underlying temporal acuity but can instead be explained by the poorer spectral resolution of cochlear implants, relative to the normally functioning ear, which leads to an effective smoothing of the inherent temporal-envelope fluctuations of noise. The outcome suggests an unexpected trade-off between the detrimental effects of poorer spectral resolution and the beneficial effects of a smoother noise temporal envelope. This trade-off provides an explanation for the long-standing puzzle of why strong correlations between speech understanding and spectral resolution have remained elusive. The results also provide a potential explanation for why cochlear-implant users and hearing-impaired listeners exhibit reduced or absent masking release when large and relatively slow temporal fluctuations are introduced in noise maskers. The multitone maskers used here may provide an effective new diagnostic tool for assessing functional hearing loss and reduced spectral resolution.

[1]  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.

[2]  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.

[3]  B. Moore Cochlear hearing loss : physiological, psychological and technical issues , 2014 .

[4]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

[7]  Torsten Dau,et al.  Predicting speech intelligibility based on the signal-to-noise envelope power ratio after modulation-frequency selective processing. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  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.

[9]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  The combined effects of reverberation and nonstationary noise on sentence intelligibility. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Simulating the effect of spread of excitation in cochlear implants , 2008, Hearing Research.

[11]  M. Chatterjee,et al.  Detection and rate discrimination of amplitude modulation in electrical hearing. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  D D Dirks,et al.  Speech recognition in amplitude-modulated noise of listeners with normal and listeners with impaired hearing. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[13]  F. Zeng Trends in Cochlear Implants , 2004, Trends in amplification.

[14]  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.

[15]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Channel interaction limits melodic pitch perception in simulated cochlear implants. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Masking release for low- and high-pass-filtered speech in the presence of noise and single-talker interference. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  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.

[18]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Noise Susceptibility of Cochlear Implant Users: The Role of Spectral Resolution and Smearing , 2005, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[19]  Kohlrausch,et al.  The influence of carrier level and frequency on modulation and beat-detection thresholds for sinusoidal carriers , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  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.

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

[22]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Behavioral measures of cochlear compression and temporal resolution as predictors of speech masking release in hearing-impaired listeners. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  B. Moore,et al.  On the near non-existence of "pure" energetic masking release for speech. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Torsten Dau,et al.  A multi-resolution envelope-power based model for speech intelligibility. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  The importance for speech intelligibility of random fluctuations in "steady" background noise. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Larry E Humes,et al.  Changes in hearing-aid benefit following 1 or 2 years of hearing-aid use by older adults. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[27]  J. C. Steinberg,et al.  Factors Governing the Intelligibility of Speech Sounds , 1945 .

[28]  N. Viemeister,et al.  Temporal modulation transfer functions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1985, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[29]  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.

[30]  T. Dau Modeling auditory processing of amplitude modulation , 1997 .

[31]  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.

[32]  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.

[33]  Dan Gnansia,et al.  Role of slow temporal modulations in speech identification for cochlear implant users , 2014, International journal of audiology.

[34]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Notionally steady background noise acts primarily as a modulation masker of speech. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  Torsten Daub Modeling auditory processing of amplitude modulation I. Detection and masking with narrow-band carriers , 1997 .

[36]  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.

[37]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Intelligibility of whispered speech in stationary and modulated noise maskers. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  T. Houtgast Frequency selectivity in amplitude-modulation detection. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  T. Houtgast,et al.  The concept of signal-to-noise ratio in the modulation domain and speech intelligibility. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  Zachary M. Smith,et al.  Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception , 2002, Nature.

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

[43]  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.

[44]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[45]  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.

[46]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Assessing the role of spectral and intensity cues in spectral ripple detection and discrimination in cochlear-implant users. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[47]  Norman C. Beaulieu,et al.  Accurate simple closed-form approximations to Rayleigh sum distributions and densities , 2005, IEEE Communications Letters.

[48]  Michael F Dorman,et al.  Development and Validation of the AzBio Sentence Lists , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[49]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear-implant spatial selectivity with monopolar, bipolar and tripolar stimulation , 2012, Hearing Research.

[50]  S. Boll,et al.  Suppression of acoustic noise in speech using spectral subtraction , 1979 .

[51]  K. D. Kryter Methods for the Calculation and Use of the Articulation Index , 1962 .

[52]  R. Shannon Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[53]  HighWire Press Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London , 1781, The London Medical Journal.

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

[55]  Louis D Braida,et al.  Speech reception by listeners with real and simulated hearing impairment: effects of continuous and interrupted noise. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[56]  Gail S Donaldson,et al.  Spatial tuning curves from apical, middle, and basal electrodes in cochlear implant users. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[57]  S. Rosen Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[58]  B J Kwon,et al.  Consonant identification under maskers with sinusoidal modulation: masking release or modulation interference? , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[59]  Joshua G W Bernstein,et al.  Effects of spectral smearing and temporal fine-structure distortion on the fluctuating-masker benefit for speech at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[61]  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.

[62]  D. Grantham,et al.  Modulation masking: effects of modulation frequency, depth, and phase. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.