Does acoustic fundamental frequency information enhance cochlear implant performance?

Abstract Objectives Low-frequency information via an acoustic aid has been shown to increase speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implant (CI) listeners. It has been suggested that fundamental frequency (F0) provides this advantage. This study aimed to investigate the contribution of F0. Methods Seven cochlear implant users having residual hearing at 125, 250, and 500 Hz contralateral to the implant were recruited. Speech intelligibility in noise was measured using an adaptive procedure for three listening conditions: (1) CI alone, (2) CI plus filtered acoustic information contralaterally, and (3) CI plus acoustic F0 contralaterally. In condition 2, the sentence material was low-passed at 500 Hz and presented via an insert earphone into the contralateral ear. In condition 3, F0 was extracted using Praat and presented as a sine wave with the same F0 variation over time as the original sentence. Results Although benefit was observed when low-frequency information was added for the majority of participants, on average no statistically significant difference was found for the three listening conditions. Discussion These results are not consistent with current literature. It is proposed that glimpsing cues may be responsible for the advantage observed in previous studies; in this study, both target and masker were presented in the acoustic condition and this may explain the discrepancy. Conclusion The benefit of additional acoustic information may be highly variable and individual to participants, but on average no statistically significant difference was seen.

[1]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Bimodal Hearing Benefit for Speech Recognition with Competing Voice in Cochlear Implant Subject with Normal Hearing in Contralateral Ear , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[2]  Christopher A Brown,et al.  Low-frequency speech cues and simulated electric-acoustic hearing. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Sid P. Bacon,et al.  Achieving Electric-Acoustic Benefit with a Modulated Tone , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[4]  Michael K. Qin,et al.  Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Sid P. Bacon,et al.  Fundamental frequency and speech intelligibility in background noise , 2010, Hearing Research.

[6]  S. Gelfand,et al.  Effects of prolonged lack of amplification on speech-recognition performance: preliminary findings. , 1993, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[7]  Teresa Y. C. Ching,et al.  Binaural Benefits for Adults Who Use Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants in Opposite Ears , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[8]  Á. Ramos,et al.  Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: A 6-month comparative study , 2005, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[9]  Gerald Kidd,et al.  Combining energetic and informational masking for speech identification. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Michael F Dorman,et al.  Information From the Voice Fundamental Frequency (F0) Region Accounts for the Majority of the Benefit When Acoustic Stimulation Is Added to Electric Stimulation , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[11]  Blake S Wilson,et al.  Cochlear implants: current designs and future possibilities. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[12]  Barbara Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Spatial release from energetic and informational masking in a selective speech identification task. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Unintelligible Low-Frequency Sound Enhances Simulated Cochlear-Implant Speech Recognition in Noise , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[14]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[15]  Ying-Yee Kong,et al.  Improved speech recognition in noise in simulated binaurally combined acoustic and electric stimulation. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  M. Ericson,et al.  Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  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.

[18]  Philipos C Loizou,et al.  Factors influencing glimpsing of speech in noise. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  S. Silman,et al.  Auditory deprivation in adults with asymmetric, sensorineural hearing impairment. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[20]  Michael F Dorman,et al.  Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[21]  C James,et al.  Speech perception in noise with implant and hearing aid. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[22]  F. Zeng,et al.  Speaker recognition with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Richard Ramsden,et al.  Evaluation of Bilaterally Implanted Adult Subjects with the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System , 2005, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[24]  Talma Shpak,et al.  Binaural–bimodal hearing: Concomitant use of a unilateral cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid , 2005, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[25]  Hideki Kawahara,et al.  YIN, a fundamental frequency estimator for speech and music. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  J Bamford,et al.  The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. , 1979, British journal of audiology.

[27]  B. Shinn-Cunningham Object-based auditory and visual attention , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[29]  P. Boersma Praat : doing phonetics by computer (version 5.1.05) , 2009 .

[30]  L. Wilber,et al.  Reference thresholds for the ER-3A insert earphone. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  Richard S. Tyler,et al.  Patients Utilizing a Hearing Aid and a Cochlear Implant: Speech Perception and Localization , 2002, Ear and hearing.