Forward-Masked Frequency Selectivity Improvements in Simulated and Actual Cochlear Implant Users Using a Preprocessing Algorithm

Frequency selectivity can be quantified using masking paradigms, such as psychophysical tuning curves (PTCs). Normal-hearing (NH) listeners show sharp PTCs that are level- and frequency-dependent, whereas frequency selectivity is strongly reduced in cochlear implant (CI) users. This study aims at (a) assessing individual shapes of PTCs in CI users, (b) comparing these shapes to those of simulated CI listeners (NH listeners hearing through a CI simulation), and (c) increasing the sharpness of PTCs using a biologically inspired dynamic compression algorithm, BioAid, which has been shown to sharpen the PTC shape in hearing-impaired listeners. A three-alternative-forced-choice forward-masking technique was used to assess PTCs in 8 CI users (with their own speech processor) and 11 NH listeners (with and without listening through a vocoder to simulate electric hearing). CI users showed flat PTCs with large interindividual variability in shape, whereas simulated CI listeners had PTCs of the same average flatness, but more homogeneous shapes across listeners. The algorithm BioAid was used to process the stimuli before entering the CI users’ speech processor or the vocoder simulation. This algorithm was able to partially restore frequency selectivity in both groups, particularly in seven out of eight CI users, meaning significantly sharper PTCs than in the unprocessed condition. The results indicate that algorithms can improve the large-scale sharpness of frequency selectivity in some CI users. This finding may be useful for the design of sound coding strategies particularly for situations in which high frequency selectivity is desired, such as for music perception.

[1]  Heather A. Kreft,et al.  Comparing spatial tuning curves, spectral ripple resolution, and speech perception in cochlear implant users. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  B. Moore Psychophysical tuning curves measured in simultaneous and forward masking. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Anthony J Spahr,et al.  Relationship between perception of spectral ripple and speech recognition in cochlear implant and vocoder listeners. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  R. Shannon,et al.  Effects of phase duration and electrode separation on loudness growth in cochlear implant listeners. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  D L Weber,et al.  Growth of masking and the auditory filter. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  L Geurts,et al.  Coding of the fundamental frequency in continuous interleaved sampling processors for cochlear implants. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Tim Jürgens,et al.  A frequency-selective feedback model of auditory efferent suppression and its implications for the recognition of speech in noise. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  D A Nelson,et al.  High-level psychophysical tuning curves: simultaneous masking by pure tones and 100-Hz-wide noise bands. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[9]  S Buus,et al.  Frequency selectivity in normally-hearing and hearing-impaired observers. , 1980, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[10]  Tim Jürgens,et al.  Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Users With and Without Access to Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing , 2015, Trends in hearing.

[11]  D A Nelson,et al.  High-level psychophysical tuning curves: forward masking in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[12]  Andrew J. Oxenham,et al.  Speech Perception in Tones and Noise via Cochlear Implants Reveals Influence of Spectral Resolution on Temporal Processing , 2014, Trends in hearing.

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

[14]  E. Lopez-Poveda,et al.  A human nonlinear cochlear filterbank. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  A Psychoacoustic "NofM"-Type Speech Coding Strategy for Cochlear Implants , 2005, EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process..

[16]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Comparisons Between Detection Threshold and Loudness Perception for Individual Cochlear Implant Channels , 2014, Ear and hearing.

[17]  Nigel P. Cooper,et al.  Efferent‐mediated control of basilar membrane motion , 2006, The Journal of physiology.

[18]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/heares , 2022 .

[20]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Companding to improve cochlear-implant speech recognition in speech-shaped noise. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  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.

[22]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Sound Coding in Cochlear Implants: From electric pulses to hearing , 2015, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.

[23]  Michael G. Heinz,et al.  Evaluating Adaptation and Olivocochlear Efferent Feedback as Potential Explanations of Psychophysical Overshoot , 2011, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[24]  D A Nelson,et al.  A new procedure for measuring peripheral compression in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  I. Russell,et al.  Medial efferent inhibition suppresses basilar membrane responses to near characteristic frequency tones of moderate to high intensities. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  A. Oxenham,et al.  A behavioral measure of basilar-membrane nonlinearity in listeners with normal and impaired hearing. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  Vit Drga,et al.  Inferred basilar-membrane response functions for listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  Tim Jürgens,et al.  Prediction of consonant recognition in quiet for listeners with normal and impaired hearing using an auditory model. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  R. Patterson,et al.  The deterioration of hearing with age: frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear-implant spatial selectivity with monopolar, bipolar and tripolar stimulation , 2012, Hearing Research.

[31]  Gail S Donaldson,et al.  Forward-masked spatial tuning curves in cochlear implant users. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  B. Moore,et al.  Refining the measurement of psychophysical tuning curves. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  J. Fayad,et al.  Multichannel Cochlear Implants: Relation of Histopathology to Performance , 2006, The Laryngoscope.

[34]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: Effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  L. Robles,et al.  Basilar-membrane responses to tones at the base of the chinchilla cochlea. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  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.

[37]  Rahul Sarpeshkar,et al.  Evaluation of companding-based spectral enhancement using simulated cochlear-implant processing. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  A. Büchner,et al.  Spectral contrast enhancement improves speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implants. , 2016, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  P. Blamey Adaptive Dynamic Range Optimization (ADRO): A Digital Amplification Strategy for Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants , 2005, Trends in amplification.

[40]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Channel interaction limits melodic pitch perception in simulated cochlear implants. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  Skyler G. Jennings,et al.  Evaluating the effects of olivocochlear feedback on psychophysical measures of frequency selectivity. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  Marc Moonen,et al.  Improved Music Perception with Explicit Pitch Coding in Cochlear Implants , 2006, Audiology and Neurotology.

[43]  J. Guinan,et al.  Time-course of the human medial olivocochlear reflex. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  Gail S Donaldson,et al.  Spatial tuning curves from apical, middle, and basal electrodes in cochlear implant users. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[46]  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.

[47]  Tim Jürgens,et al.  Exploration of a physiologically-inspired hearing-aid algorithm using a computer model mimicking impaired hearing , 2016, International journal of audiology.

[48]  R. Meddis,et al.  Acquisition of auditory profiles for good and impaired hearing , 2013, International journal of audiology.