Effects of Stimulus Level on Speech Perception with Cochlear Prostheses

This study is one of a series that examines stimulus features important for cochlear implant function. Here, we examine effects of stimulus level. In subjects with cochlear implants, a number of psychophysical tests of temporal discrimination (pulse rate discrimination, gap detection, etc.) show marked improvement as a function of stimulus level through most or all of the dynamic range, while electrode-place discrimination can improve or degrade as a function of level. In this study, effects of these combined potential influences were studied by examining the effects of stimulus level on syllable identification. We tested two hypotheses: that syllable identification varies as a function of stimulus level and that level and electrode configuration interact in affecting syllable identification. We examined vowel and consonant identification as a function of stimulus level for bipolar and monopolar electrode configurations. We used experimental processor maps where upper and lower stimulation limits of each electrode pair were equated to eliminate confounding effects of dynamic range, which varies across subjects and electrodes. For each channel, stimulation amplitude was set to a fixed percentage of its dynamic range. Eight adult subjects with Nucleus CI24M implants were tested using the SPEAK processing strategy. With each electrode configuration, stimulus levels were tested from 0% to 90% of the dynamic range in nine steps. The effects on consonant and vowel identification were similar. Phoneme identification was usually better for monopolar than for bipolar stimulation. In the lower half of the dynamic range, syllable identification usually increased as a function of stimulus level. In the upper half of the dynamic range, syllable identification continued to increase as a function of level to 90% of the dynamic range for some subjects, while for others there was no appreciable change or a decrease as a function of level. Decreases in performance at high levels were more common with monopolar than bipolar stimulation. These results suggest that if speech processors are programmed to optimize level for each individual, speech perception performance could be improved.

[1]  S. Telian,et al.  Performance with the 20 + 2L lateral wall cochlear implant. , 1998, The American journal of otology.

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

[3]  John C Middlebrooks,et al.  Auditory cortical images of cochlear-implant stimuli: dependence on electrode configuration. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[4]  Stephen J. Rebscher,et al.  Chronic intracochlear electrical stimulation in the neonatally deafened cat. II: Temporal properties of neurons in the inferior colliculus , 1991, Hearing Research.

[5]  R V Shannon,et al.  Detection of gaps in sinusoids and pulse trains by patients with cochlear implants. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  J K Shallop,et al.  Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 Channel Cochlear Implant System. , 1994, The American journal of otology.

[7]  Comment on "Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants" [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91,2156-2164 (1992)]. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  M W Skinner,et al.  Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant. , 1999, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[9]  R V Shannon,et al.  Consonant recordings for speech testing. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  B. Pfingst,et al.  Effects of level on nonspectral frequency difference limens for electrical and acoustic stimuli , 1990, Hearing Research.

[11]  F G Zeng,et al.  Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[12]  R V Shannon,et al.  Effects of electrode location and spacing on phoneme recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[13]  R. Battmer,et al.  Experience with the cochlear miniature speech processor in adults and children together with a comparison of unipolar and bipolar modes. , 1992, ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties.

[14]  Teresa A. Zwolan,et al.  Effects of stimulus level on nonspectral frequency discrimination by human subjects , 1994, Hearing Research.

[15]  H J McDermott,et al.  Evaluation of the Nucleus Spectra 22 processor and new speech processing strategy (SPEAK) in postlinguistically deafened adults. , 1995, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[16]  J. Hillenbrand,et al.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Robert V. Shannon,et al.  Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. II. Channel interaction , 1983, Hearing Research.

[18]  P C Loizou,et al.  The Effect of Reduced Dynamic Range on Speech Understanding: Implications for Patients with Cochlear Implants , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[19]  Li Xu,et al.  Effects of Electrode Configuration and Place of Stimulation on Speech Perception with Cochlear Prostheses , 2000, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[20]  S A Telian,et al.  Patient performance with the Cochlear Corporation "20 + 2" implant: bipolar versus monopolar activation. , 1996, The American journal of otology.

[21]  B M Clopton,et al.  Effects of electrical current configuration on potential fields in the electrically stimulated cochlea: field models and measurements. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[22]  D Sutton,et al.  Intensity discrimination with cochlear implants. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Stephen J. Rebscher,et al.  The effect of electrode configuration and duration of deafness on threshold and selectivity of responses to intracochlear electrical stimulation. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Leslie M Collins,et al.  Effects of stimulus level on electrode-place discrimination in human subjects with cochlear implants , 1999, Hearing Research.

[25]  F B Simmons,et al.  Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. , 1966, Archives of otolaryngology.

[26]  R. Shannon Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. I. Basic psychophysics , 1983, Hearing Research.

[27]  Rainer Hartmann,et al.  Spatial resolution of cochlear implants: the electrical field and excitation of auditory afferents , 1998, Hearing Research.

[28]  R. Snyder,et al.  Chronic intracochlear electrical stimulation in the neonatally deafened cat. I: Expansion of central representation , 1990, Hearing Research.

[29]  Teresa A. Zwolan,et al.  Effects of stimulus configuration on psychophysical operating levels and on speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1997, Hearing Research.

[30]  D. J. Morris,et al.  Effects of Electrode Configuration and Stimulus Level on Rate and Level Discrimination with Cochlear Implants , 2000, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

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

[32]  Effect of current level on electrode discrimination in electrical stimulation , 1999, Hearing Research.