Enhancement of temporal periodicity cues in cochlear implants: effects on prosodic perception and vowel identification.

Standard continuous interleaved sampling processing, and a modified processing strategy designed to enhance temporal cues to voice pitch, were compared on tests of intonation perception, and vowel perception, both in implant users and in acoustic simulations. In standard processing, 400 Hz low-pass envelopes modulated either pulse trains (implant users) or noise carriers (simulations). In the modified strategy, slow-rate envelope modulations, which convey dynamic spectral variation crucial for speech understanding, were extracted by low-pass filtering (32 Hz). In addition, during voiced speech, higher-rate temporal modulation in each channel was provided by 100% amplitude-modulation by a sawtooth-like wave form whose periodicity followed the fundamental frequency (F0) of the input. Channel levels were determined by the product of the lower- and higher-rate modulation components. Both in acoustic simulations and in implant users, the ability to use intonation information to identify sentences as question or statement was significantly better with modified processing. However, while there was no difference in vowel recognition in the acoustic simulation, implant users performed worse with modified processing both in vowel recognition and in formant frequency discrimination. It appears that, while enhancing pitch perception, modified processing harmed the transmission of spectral information.

[1]  B S Wilson,et al.  The future of cochlear implants. , 1997, British journal of audiology.

[2]  G M Clark,et al.  The perception of temporal modulations by cochlear implant patients. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  M Pelizzone,et al.  Low-pass filtering in amplitude modulation detection associated with vowel and consonant identification in subjects with cochlear implants. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Y Hui,et al.  Chinese tonal language rehabilitation following cochlear implantation in children. , 2000, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[5]  D K Kessler,et al.  Analysis and Revision of the Minimal Auditory Capabilities (MAC) Battery , 1985, Ear and hearing.

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

[7]  Robert V. Shannon,et al.  Importance of tonal envelope cues in Chinese speech recognition , 1995 .

[8]  Sheldon B. Michaels,et al.  Some Aspects of Fundamental Frequency and Envelope Amplitude as Related to the Emotional Content of Speech , 1962 .

[9]  G P Clarke,et al.  External electrical stimulation of the cochlea: clinical, psychophysical, speech-perceptual and histological findings. , 1979, British journal of audiology.

[10]  A. R. Kaiser,et al.  Perceptual "vowel spaces" of cochlear implant users: implications for the study of auditory adaptation to spectral shift. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

[13]  H J McDermott,et al.  Perceptual Performance of Subjects with Cochlear Implants Using the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor (SMSP) and the Mini Speech Processor (MSP) , 1993, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Better place-coding of the fundamental frequency in cochlear implants. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  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.

[16]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  Spectral and temporal cues to pitch in noise-excited vocoder simulations of continuous-interleaved-sampling cochlear implants. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Alexander L. Francis,et al.  The perception of Cantonese lexical tones by early-deafened cochlear implantees. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  L Geurts,et al.  Coding of the fundamental frequency in continuous interleaved sampling processors for cochlear implants. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Mandarin tone recognition in cochlear-implant subjects , 2004, Hearing Research.

[20]  M. D. Wang,et al.  Consonant confusions in noise: a study of perceptual features. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  C. Formby,et al.  Differential sensitivity to tonal frequency and to the rate of amplitude modulation of broadband noise by normally hearing listeners. , 1985 .

[22]  C A van Hasselt,et al.  Cantonese tone perception ability of cochlear implant children in comparison with normal-hearing children. , 2002, International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology.

[23]  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.

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

[25]  J B Millar,et al.  Psychophysical and speech perception studies on two multiple channel cochlear implant patients , 1980, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[26]  Shangkai Gao,et al.  A novel speech-processing strategy incorporating tonal information for cochlear implants , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[27]  M W Skinner,et al.  Identification of Speech by Cochlear Implant Recipients with the Multipeak (MPEAK) and Spectral Peak (SPEAK) Speech Coding Strategies I. Vowels , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[28]  D. Au Effects of stimulation rates on Cantonese lexical tone perception by cochlear implant users in Hong Kong. , 2003, Clinical otolaryngology and allied sciences.

[29]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  Enhancing temporal cues to voice pitch in continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[31]  Hintat Cheung,et al.  Perception and Production of Mandarin Tones in Prelingually Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[32]  J. T Rubinstein,et al.  Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation , 1999, Hearing Research.

[33]  Hugh J. McDermott,et al.  A comparison of speech perception of cochlear implantees using the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor (SMSP) and the MSP (MULTIPEAK) processor. , 1992, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[34]  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.

[35]  H J McDermott,et al.  Pitch percepts associated with amplitude-modulated current pulse trains in cochlear implantees. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[37]  I. Pollack Periodicity pitch for interrupted white noise--fact or artifact? , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[39]  M R Leek,et al.  Modulation rate detection and discrimination by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Temporal cues for consonant recognition: training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  E. M. Burns,et al.  Played-again SAM: Further observations on the pitch of amplitude-modulated noise , 1981 .

[42]  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.

[43]  T E Hanna,et al.  Discrimination and identification of modulation rate using a noise carrier. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

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

[47]  F. Zeng,et al.  Importance of tonal envelope cues in Chinese speech recognition. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[48]  Peter J. Blamey,et al.  Tone discrimination in Cantonese-speaking children using a cochlear implant , 2002, Clinical linguistics & phonetics.