Use of Amplitude Modulation Cues Recovered from Frequency Modulation for Cochlear Implant Users When Original Speech Cues Are Severely Degraded

ABSTRACTWon et al. (J Acoust Soc Am 132:1113–1119, 2012) reported that cochlear implant (CI) speech processors generate amplitude-modulation (AM) cues recovered from broadband speech frequency modulation (FM) and that CI users can use these cues for speech identification in quiet. The present study was designed to extend this finding for a wide range of listening conditions, where the original speech cues were severely degraded by manipulating either the acoustic signals or the speech processor. The manipulation of the acoustic signals included the presentation of background noise, simulation of reverberation, and amplitude compression. The manipulation of the speech processor included changing the input dynamic range and the number of channels. For each of these conditions, multiple levels of speech degradation were tested. Speech identification was measured for CI users and compared for stimuli having both AM and FM information (intact condition) or FM information only (FM condition). Each manipulation degraded speech identification performance for both intact and FM conditions. Performance for the intact and FM conditions became similar for stimuli having the most severe degradations. Identification performance generally overlapped for the intact and FM conditions. Moreover, identification performance for the FM condition was better than chance performance even at the maximum level of distortion. Finally, significant correlations were found between speech identification scores for the intact and FM conditions. Altogether, these results suggest that despite poor frequency selectivity, CI users can make efficient use of AM cues recovered from speech FM in difficult listening situations.

[1]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Spectral-Ripple Resolution Correlates with Speech Reception in Noise in Cochlear Implant Users , 2007, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[2]  Q J Fu,et al.  Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Simulating the effect of spread of excitation in cochlear implants , 2008, Hearing Research.

[4]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Contribution of frequency modulation to speech recognition in noise. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Donald H. White,et al.  Physics and Music: The Science of Musical Sound , 1980 .

[6]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. , 1962, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[8]  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.

[9]  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.

[10]  Emil L. Torick,et al.  Improving the signal-to-noise ratio and coverage of FM stereophonic broadcasts , 1985 .

[11]  R Plomp,et al.  The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  J. Swaminathan,et al.  Psychophysiological Analyses Demonstrate the Importance of Neural Envelope Coding for Speech Perception in Noise , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[13]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Effects of reverberation and masking on speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  M. Dorman,et al.  Performance of Patients Using Different Cochlear Implant Systems: Effects of Input Dynamic Range , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[15]  Lorienne M Jenstad,et al.  Temporal envelope changes of compression and speech rate: combined effects on recognition for older adults. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[16]  Lorienne M Jenstad,et al.  Measuring the acoustic effects of compression amplification on speech in noise. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[18]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[19]  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.

[20]  Lorienne M Jenstad,et al.  Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility. , 2005, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[21]  Xing Li,et al.  The ability of cochlear implant users to use temporal envelope cues recovered from speech frequency modulation. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  M. Dorman,et al.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  B. Moore An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing , 1977 .

[24]  Sarah F Poissant,et al.  Effects of source-to-listener distance and masking on perception of cochlear implant processed speech in reverberant rooms. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Daniel Pressnitzer,et al.  Intelligibility of interrupted and interleaved speech for normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implantees , 2010, Hearing Research.

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

[27]  Jay T. Rubinstein,et al.  Discrimination of Schroeder-Phase Harmonic Complexes by Normal-Hearing and Cochlear-Implant Listeners , 2008, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[28]  S. Gelfand Essentials of Audiology , 1997 .

[29]  Eberhard Zwicker,et al.  Direct Comparisons between the Sensations Produced by Frequency Modulation and Amplitude Modulation , 1962 .

[30]  Kostas Kokkinakis,et al.  A channel-selection criterion for suppressing reverberation in cochlear implants. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  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.

[32]  R C Bilger,et al.  Electrical Stimulation of the Auditory Nerve and Auditory Prostheses: A Review of the Literature , 1977, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[33]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  A detailed study on the effects of noise on speech intelligibility. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  B C Moore,et al.  Detection of frequency modulation at low modulation rates: evidence for a mechanism based on phase locking. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  M Dorman,et al.  Consonant recognition as a function of the number of channels of stimulation by patients who use the Symbion cochlear implant. , 1989, Ear and hearing.

[37]  P C Loizou,et al.  On the number of channels needed to understand speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  Guy J. Brown,et al.  Computational Auditory Scene Analysis: Principles, Algorithms, and Applications , 2006 .

[39]  Kourosh Saberi,et al.  A common neural code for frequency- and amplitude-modulated sounds , 1995, Nature.

[40]  Zachary M. Smith,et al.  Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception , 2002, Nature.

[41]  Joan Besing,et al.  Effects of Noise and Reverberation on Virtual Sound Localization for Listeners With Bilateral Cochlear Implants , 2011, Ear and hearing.

[42]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[43]  Fan-Gand Zeng,et al.  Compression and Cochlear Implants , 2004 .

[44]  Carl Verschuur Modeling the effect of channel number and interaction on consonant recognition in a cochlear implant peak-picking strategy. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[45]  Dan Gnansia,et al.  Temporal-Envelope Reconstruction for Hearing-Impaired Listeners , 2012, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[46]  Christopher A Brown,et al.  Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[47]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  The effects of the addition of low-level, low-noise noise on the intelligibility of sentences processed to remove temporal envelope information. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[48]  O Ghitza,et al.  On the upper cutoff frequency of the auditory critical-band envelope detectors in the context of speech perception. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[49]  Christian Lorenzi,et al.  The ability of listeners to use recovered envelope cues from speech fine structure. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[50]  Blake S. Wilson,et al.  Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future , 2008, Hearing Research.

[51]  Jayaganesh Swaminathan,et al.  Quantifying Envelope and Fine-Structure Coding in Auditory Nerve Responses to Chimaeric Speech , 2009, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[52]  T Houtgast,et al.  A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[53]  J. Hanekom,et al.  An analysis of the effects of electrical field interaction with an acoustic model of cochlear implants. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[54]  Kostas Kokkinakis,et al.  The impact of reverberant self-masking and overlap-masking effects on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners (L). , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[55]  Christian Lorenzi,et al.  Speech identification based on temporal fine structure cues. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.