Effects of Stimulation Rate on Speech Recognition with Cochlear Implants

Phoneme and speech recognition were measured as a function of stimulation pulse rate in 12 listeners with three types of cochlear implants. Identification of consonants and vowels and recognition of words and sentences were measured in 5 Clarion C1 subjects fit with continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) processors having 4 or 8 electrodes, 4 Nucleus 24 subjects fit with CIS processors having 4, 8, 12 or 16 electrodes and 3 Clarion C2 subjects fit with CIS processors with 4, 8, 12 and 16 electrodes. Stimulation rates ranged from 200 to more than 5000 Hz per electrode, depending on the device, number of electrodes used and stimulation strategy. Listeners were also tested on the same materials with their original processor prior to receiving the experimental processors. All testing was done in quiet listening conditions with essentially no practice with the experimental processor prior to data collection. Listeners scored the highest with their original processor. Little difference in speech understanding was observed for listener scores with processors using different stimulation rates. Speech recognition was significantly poorer only at the lowest stimulation rate and at high rates that used noninterleaved pulses. Speech recognition was similar for processors using 8, 12 or 16 electrodes. Only 4-electrode processors produced a significantly poorer performance. These results suggest that patients with present commercial implants are not able to make full use of the number of channels of spectral information delivered by the present speech processors. In addition, the results show no significant change in performance as a function of stimulation rate, suggesting that high stimulation rates do not result in improved access to temporal cues in speech, at least under quiet listening conditions.

[1]  M F Dorman,et al.  The Identification of Consonants and Vowels by Cochlear Implant Patients Using a 6‐Channel Continuous Interleaved Sampling Processor and by Normal‐Hearing Subjects Using Simulations of Processors with Two to Nine Channels , 1998, Ear and hearing.

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

[3]  J. Hillenbrand,et al.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[5]  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.

[6]  M. Dorman,et al.  The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  R. Plomp The Role of Modulation in Hearing , 1983 .

[8]  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.

[9]  M F Dorman,et al.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

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

[11]  J. T Rubinstein,et al.  Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation , 1999, Hearing Research.

[12]  E. Rouiller,et al.  Effect of high-frequency electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in an animal model of cochlear implants. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

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

[14]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Erratum: An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 27, 339 (1955)] , 1955 .

[15]  E. Evans,et al.  Enhancement of vowel coding for cochlear implants by addition of noise , 1996, Nature Medicine.

[16]  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.

[17]  W Baumgartner,et al.  Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[18]  S. Rosen Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[19]  D T Lawson,et al.  Temporal representations with cochlear implants. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[20]  Bertrand Delgutte,et al.  Improved temporal coding of sinusoids in electric stimulation of the auditory nerve using desynchronizing pulse trains. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[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]  G M Clark,et al.  An acoustic model of a multiple-channel cochlear implant. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  F. J. Hill,et al.  Speech recognition as a function of channel capacity in a discrete set of channels. , 1968, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[26]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Optimized Speech Understanding with the Continuous Interleaved Sampling Speech Coding Strategy in Patients with Cochlear Implants: Effect of Variations in Stimulation Rate and Number of Channels , 2000, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

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

[28]  Astrid van Wieringen,et al.  Temporal pitch mechanisms in acoustic and electric hearing. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  M F Dorman,et al.  The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Features of stimulation affecting tonal-speech perception: implications for cochlear prostheses. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  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.

[32]  D. Fabry,et al.  Detection and recognition of stop consonants by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[33]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Effects of Stimulation Rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE Speech Coding Strategy , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[34]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  K. Plant,et al.  Speech Perception as a Function of Electrical Stimulation Rate: Using the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System , 2000, Ear and hearing.

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

[37]  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.

[38]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

[39]  Bertrand Delgutte,et al.  Improved neural representation of vowels in electric stimulation using desynchronizing pulse trains. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  R V Shannon,et al.  Effects of amplitude nonlinearity on phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  B. Delgutte,et al.  Auditory nerve fiber responses to electric stimulation: modulated and unmodulated pulse trains. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  G. A. Miller,et al.  An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants , 1955 .

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

[44]  E. M. Burns,et al.  Played-again SAM: Further observations on the pitch of amplitude-modulated noise , 1981 .

[45]  F. Zeng,et al.  Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  Bertrand Delgutte,et al.  Desynchronization of electrically evoked auditory-nerve activity by high-frequency pulse trains of long duration. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[47]  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.

[48]  B. Wilson,et al.  Speech Processors for Auditory Prostheses , 2001 .

[49]  R. Shannon,et al.  Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.