Masking release and modulation interference in cochlear implant and simulation listeners.

PURPOSE To examine the effects of temporal and spectral interference of masking noise on sentence recognition for listeners with cochlear implants (CI) and normal-hearing persons listening to vocoded signals that simulate signals processed through a CI (NH-Sim). METHOD NH-Sim and CI listeners participated in the experiments using speech and noise that were processed by bandpass filters. Depending on the experimental condition, the spectra of the maskers relative to that of speech were set to be completely embedded with, partially overlapping, or completely separate from, the speech. The maskers were either steady or amplitude modulated and were presented at +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio. RESULTS NH-Sim listeners experienced progressively more masking as the masker became more spectrally overlapping with speech, whereas CI listeners experienced masking even when the masker was spectrally remote from the speech signal. Both the NH-Sim and CI listeners experienced significant modulation interference when noise was modulated at a syllabic rate (4 Hz), suggesting that listeners may experience both modulation interference and masking release. Thus, modulated noise has mixed and counteracting effects on speech perception. CONCLUSION When the NH-Sim and CI listeners with poor spectral resolution were tested using syllabic-like rates of modulated noise, they tended to integrate or confuse the noise with the speech, causing an increase in speech errors. Optional training programs might be useful for CI listeners who show more difficulty understanding speech in noise.

[1]  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.

[2]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Maximizing cochlear implant patients’ performance with advanced speech training procedures , 2008, Hearing Research.

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

[4]  Robert W. Sweetow,et al.  The case for LACE: Listening and auditory communication enhancement training , 2004 .

[5]  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.

[6]  N. Kraus,et al.  The time course of auditory perceptual learning: neurophysiological changes during speech‐sound training , 1998, Neuroreport.

[7]  Antje Ihlefeld,et al.  Simulations of cochlear-implant speech perception in modulated and unmodulated noise. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Yi Hu,et al.  Speech recognition by bilateral cochlear implant users in a cocktail-party setting. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Melodic Contour Identification by Cochlear Implant Listeners , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[10]  D S Brungart,et al.  Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  René H. Gifford,et al.  Speech Recognition Materials and Ceiling Effects: Considerations for Cochlear Implant Programs , 2008, Audiology and Neurotology.

[12]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Melodic Contour Identification Training in Cochlear Implant Users with and without a Competing Instrument , 2012, Seminars in Hearing.

[13]  Richard Ramsden,et al.  Speech Understanding in Noise with a Med-El COMBI 40+ Cochlear Implant Using Reduced Channel Sets , 2002, Ear and hearing.

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

[15]  L. Humes,et al.  Development and Efficacy of a Frequent-Word Auditory Training Protocol for Older Adults with Impaired Hearing , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[16]  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.

[17]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Speech perception in gated noise: the effects of temporal resolution. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  T. Houtgast,et al.  A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria , 1985 .

[19]  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.

[20]  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.

[21]  K. Gfeller,et al.  Effects of training on timbre recognition and appraisal by postlingually deafened cochlear implant recipients. , 2002, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[22]  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.

[23]  Eric W Healy,et al.  Sentence recognition in noise promoting or suppressing masking release by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Moderate auditory training can improve speech performance of adult cochlear implant patients , 2005 .

[25]  IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measurements , 1969, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics.

[26]  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.

[27]  G F Smoorenburg,et al.  Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  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.

[29]  G. Kidd,et al.  The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  Joshua G. W. Bernstein,et al.  Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.