Feasibility of Real-Time Selection of Frequency Tables in an Acoustic Simulation of a Cochlear Implant

Objectives: Perception of spectrally degraded speech is particularly difficult when the signal is also distorted along the frequency axis. This might be particularly important for post-lingually deafened recipients of cochlear implants (CIs), who must adapt to a signal where there may be a mismatch between the frequencies of an input signal and the characteristic frequencies of the neurons stimulated by the CI. However, there is a lack of tools that can be used to identify whether an individual has adapted fully to a mismatch in the frequency-to-place relationship and if so, to find a frequency table that ameliorates any negative effects of an unadapted mismatch. The goal of the proposed investigation is to test the feasibility of whether real-time selection of frequency tables can be used to identify cases in which listeners have not fully adapted to a frequency mismatch. The assumption underlying this approach is that listeners who have not adapted to a frequency mismatch will select a frequency table that minimizes any such mismatches, even at the expense of reducing the information provided by this frequency table. Design: Thirty-four normal-hearing adults listened to a noise-vocoded acoustic simulation of a CI and adjusted the frequency table in real time until they obtained a frequency table that sounded “most intelligible” to them. The use of an acoustic simulation was essential to this study because it allowed the authors to explicitly control the degree of frequency mismatch present in the simulation. None of the listeners had any previous experience with vocoded speech, in order to test the hypothesis that the real-time selection procedure could be used to identify cases in which a listener has not adapted to a frequency mismatch. After obtaining a self-selected table, the authors measured consonant nucleus consonant word-recognition scores with that self-selected table and two other frequency tables: a “frequency-matched” table that matched the analysis filters with the noisebands of the noise-vocoder simulation, and a “right information” table that is similar to that used in most CI speech processors, but in this simulation results in a frequency shift equivalent to 6.5 mm of cochlear space. Results: Listeners tended to select a table that was very close to, but shifted slightly lower in frequency from the frequency-matched table. The real-time selection process took on average 2 to 3 min for each trial, and the between-trial variability was comparable with that previously observed with closely related procedures. The word-recognition scores with the self-selected table were clearly higher than with the right-information table and slightly higher than with the frequency-matched table. Conclusions: Real-time self-selection of frequency tables may be a viable tool for identifying listeners who have not adapted to a mismatch in the frequency-to-place relationship, and to find a frequency table that is more appropriate for them. Moreover, the small but significant improvements in word-recognition ability observed with the self-selected table suggest that these listeners based their selections on intelligibility rather than some other factor. The within-subject variability in the real-time selection procedure was comparable with that of a genetic algorithm, and the speed of the real-time procedure appeared to be faster than either a genetic algorithm or a simplex procedure.

[1]  R. Shrivastav,et al.  Speech based optimization of cochlear implants , 2012, International journal of audiology.

[2]  Mario A. Svirsky,et al.  Using a Personal Computer to Perform Real-Time Signal Processing in Cochlear Implant Research , 2000 .

[3]  Bart Vaerenberg,et al.  Development of a Software Tool Using Deterministic Logic for the Optimization of Cochlear Implant Processor Programming , 2010, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[4]  Wouter A Dreschler,et al.  UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) Methodological aspects of an adaptive multidirectional pattern search to optimize speech perception using three hearing-aid algorithms , 2004 .

[5]  H Levitt,et al.  An Examination of the Practicality of the Simplex Procedure , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[6]  G. Saunders,et al.  A test to measure subjective and objective speech intelligibility. , 2002, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[7]  Bart Vaerenberg,et al.  Experiences of the use of FOX, an intelligent agent, for programming cochlear implant sound processors in new users , 2011, International journal of audiology.

[8]  M A Svirsky,et al.  Long-term auditory adaptation to a modified peripheral frequency map , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[9]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  The Right Information May Matter More Than Frequency-Place Alignment: Simulations of Frequency-Aligned and Upward Shifting Cochlear Implant Processors for a Shallow Electrode Array Insertion , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[10]  Patricia A. Leake,et al.  Frequency Map for the Human Cochlear Spiral Ganglion: Implications for Cochlear Implants , 2007, Journal for the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[11]  Bruce J. Gantz,et al.  Changes in Pitch with a Cochlear Implant Over Time , 2007, Journal for the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[12]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  A Model of Incomplete Adaptation to a Severely Shifted Frequency-to-Electrode Mapping by Cochlear Implant Users , 2010, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[13]  Deniz Başkent,et al.  Using Genetic Algorithms with Subjective Input from Human Subjects: Implications for Fitting Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[14]  F K Kuk,et al.  The reliability of a modified simplex procedure in hearing aid frequency-response selection. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[15]  Deniz Baskent,et al.  Speech recognition under conditions of frequency-place compression and expansion. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  R. Shannon,et al.  Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  C. Turner,et al.  Effects of Lower Frequency-to-Electrode Allocations on Speech and Pitch Perception with the Hybrid Short-Electrode Cochlear Implant , 2012, Audiology and Neurotology.

[18]  G. Wang,et al.  In vivo measures of cochlear length and insertion depth of nucleus cochlear implant electrode arrays. , 1998, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[19]  Deniz Başkent,et al.  Simulating listener errors in using genetic algorithms for perceptual optimization. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Joseph Roberson,et al.  Nucleus Freedom North American Clinical Trial , 2007, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[21]  M. Dorman,et al.  Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  H Levitt,et al.  An evaluation of three adaptive hearing aid selection strategies. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Gregory Valentini,et al.  Implications of Deep Electrode Insertion on Cochlear Implant Fitting , 2007, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[24]  D. D. Greenwood A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  A. Faulkner,et al.  Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[27]  Monique Boymans,et al.  Interactive fitting of multiple algorithms implemented in the same digital hearing aid , 2007, International journal of audiology.

[28]  Chin-Tuan Tan,et al.  A New Software Tool to Optimize Frequency Table Selection for Cochlear Implants , 2010, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[29]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Perceptual learning following changes in the frequency-to-electrode assignment with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  Erin C Schafer,et al.  Application of Paired-Comparison Methods to Hearing Aids , 2009, Trends in amplification.

[31]  P G Stelmachowicz,et al.  Preferred hearing-aid frequency responses in simulated listening environments. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[32]  Gregory H Wakefield,et al.  Genetic Algorithms for Adaptive Psychophysical Procedures: Recipient-Directed Design of Speech-Processor MAPs , 2005, Ear and hearing.

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

[34]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  The effects of short-term training for spectrally mismatched noise-band speech. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.