Investigating perceptual features of electrode stimulation via a multidimensional scaling paradigm.

To achieve the most effective speech processing for individuals with cochlear implants, it is important to understand the perceptual features associated with the stimulation parameters. In general, when electrodes are stimulated in order from apex to base, the pitch of the perceived sound changes in an orderly fashion from low to high. Some deviations from this assumed order have been documented. Also, pitch is the dominant perceptual attribute of a sound when the stimuli associated with different electrodes have been accurately loudness balanced. In this study, the results of a multidimensional scaling (MDS) paradigm were compared to the results of a pitch-ranking procedure for six subjects implanted with multichannel cochlear prostheses. Results indicate that there may be multiple percepts that change with electrode location. Not surprisingly, the dominant percept is strongly correlated with pitch. The results also indicate that the structure of the second percept is consistent across subjects, although not interpretable using the data measured in this study. Furthermore, results indicate that MDS data can be used to pinpoint indiscriminable electrodes more accurately than pitch data. The results of this study may have importance for the design of the next generation of speech processors.

[1]  W. Dobelle,et al.  Auditory Prostheses Research with Multiple Channel Intracochlear Stimulation in Man , 1978, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

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

[3]  L M Collins,et al.  Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[5]  D. Eddington Speech discrimination in deaf subjects with cochlear implants. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Electrode ranking of "place pitch" and speech recognition in electrical hearing. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  L M Collins,et al.  Comparison of electrode discrimination, pitch ranking, and pitch scaling data in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. , 1997, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  S Pijl Pulse Rate Matching by Cochlear Implant Patients: Effects of Loudness Randomization and Electrode Position , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[9]  C S Throckmorton,et al.  Investigation of the effects of temporal and spatial interactions on speech-recognition skills in cochlear-implant subjects. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  G M Clark,et al.  Absolute identification of electric pulse rates and electrode positions by cochlear implant patients. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  C M McKay,et al.  Dual temporal pitch percepts from acoustic and electric amplitude-modulated pulse trains. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  G M Clark,et al.  Two-component hearing sensations produced by two-electrode stimulation in the cochlea of a deaf patient. , 1983, Science.

[13]  M F Dorman,et al.  Acoustic cues for consonant identification by patients who use the Ineraid cochlear implant. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  G. Clark,et al.  Psychophysical studies evaluating the feasibility of a speech processing strategy for a multiple-channel cochlear implant. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  P J Blamey,et al.  Psychophysical studies for two multiple-channel cochlear implant patients. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  P J Blamey,et al.  Pitch perception for different modes of stimulation using the cochlear multiple-electrode prosthesis. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  R V Shannon,et al.  Forward masked excitation patterns in multielectrode electrical stimulation. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  P M Seligman,et al.  A 12-consonant confusion study on a multiple-channel cochlear implant patient. , 1982, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[19]  H J McDermott,et al.  The perceptual dimensions of single-electrode and nonsimultaneous dual-electrode stimuli in cochlear implantees. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

[22]  Bryan E. Pfingst,et al.  Comparisons of psychophysical and neurophysiological studies of cochlear implants , 1988, Hearing Research.

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