Temporal modulation transfer functions in cochlear implantees using a method that limits overall loudness cues

Temporal modulation transfer functions (TMTFs) were measured for six users of cochlear implants, using different carrier rates and levels. Unlike most previous studies investigating modulation detection, the experimental design limited potential effects of overall loudness cues. Psychometric functions (percent correct discrimination of modulated from unmodulated stimuli versus modulation depth) were obtained. For each modulation depth, each modulated stimulus was loudness balanced to the unmodulated reference stimulus, and level jitter was applied in the discrimination task. The loudness-balance data showed that the modulated stimuli were louder than the unmodulated reference stimuli with the same average current, thus confirming the need to limit loudness cues when measuring modulation detection. TMTFs measured in this way had a low-pass characteristic, with a cut-off frequency (at comfortably loud levels) similar to that for normal-hearing listeners. A reduction in level caused degradation in modulation detection efficiency and a lower-cut-off frequency (i.e. poorer temporal resolution). An increase in carrier rate also led to a degradation in modulation detection efficiency, but only at lower levels or higher modulation frequencies. When detection thresholds were expressed as a proportion of dynamic range, there was no effect of carrier rate for the lowest modulation frequency (50 Hz) at either level.

[1]  J. Galvin,et al.  Influence of stimulation rate and loudness growth on modulation detection and intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users , 2009, Hearing Research.

[2]  Robert S Hong,et al.  Signal Coding in Cochlear Implants: Exploiting Stochastic Effects of Electrical Stimulation , 2003, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[3]  N. Viemeister Temporal modulation transfer functions based upon modulation thresholds. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  B. Kollmeier,et al.  Modeling auditory processing of amplitude modulation. I. Detection and masking with narrow-band carriers. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Monita Chatterjee,et al.  Noise improves modulation detection by cochlear implant listeners at moderate carrier levels. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Across-site patterns of modulation detection in listeners with cochlear implants. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[8]  N. Viemeister,et al.  Intensity discrimination and detection of amplitude modulation in electric hearing. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  H J McDermott,et al.  Pitch percepts associated with amplitude-modulated current pulse trains in cochlear implantees. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  John C Middlebrooks Cochlear-implant high pulse rate and narrow electrode configuration impair transmission of temporal information to the auditory cortex. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[11]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Effects of Stimulation Rate, Mode and Level on Modulation Detection by Cochlear Implant Users , 2005, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[12]  M Pelizzone,et al.  Low-pass filtering in amplitude modulation detection associated with vowel and consonant identification in subjects with cochlear implants. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  M. Chatterjee,et al.  Detection and rate discrimination of amplitude modulation in electrical hearing. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Hugh J. McDermott,et al.  A practical method of predicting the loudness of complex electrical stimuli. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  C. Micheyl,et al.  On the choice of adequate randomization ranges for limiting the use of unwanted cues in same-different, dual-pair, and oddity tasks , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[16]  F. Zeng,et al.  Loudness of dynamic stimuli in acoustic and electric hearing. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Mark E. Robert,et al.  Noise Enhances Modulation Sensitivity in Cochlear Implant Listeners: Stochastic Resonance in a Prosthetic Sensory System? , 2001, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[18]  Kohlrausch,et al.  The influence of carrier level and frequency on modulation and beat-detection thresholds for sinusoidal carriers , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  G S Donaldson,et al.  Intensity discrimination as a function of stimulus level with electric stimulation. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Effects of carrier pulse rate and stimulation site on modulation detection by subjects with cochlear implants. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Colette M. McKay,et al.  Amplitude Modulation and Loudness in Cochlear Implantees , 2010, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[22]  G M Clark,et al.  The perception of temporal modulations by cochlear implant patients. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Q. Fu Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users , 2002, Neuroreport.