Sensitivity of psychophysical measures to signal processor modifications in cochlear implant users

Experienced users of the Clarion cochlear implant were tested acutely with the HiResolution (HiRes) and HiRes Fidelity120 (F120) processing strategies. Three psychophysically-based tests were used including spectral-ripple discrimination, Schroeder-phase discrimination and temporal modulation detection. Three clinical outcome measures were used including consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word recognition in quiet, word recognition in noise and the clinical assessment of music perception (CAMP). Listener's spectral-ripple discrimination ability improved with F120, but Schroeder-phase discrimination was worse with F120 than with HiRes. Listeners who had better than average acuity showed the biggest effects. There were no significant effects of the processing strategy on any of the clinical abilities nor on temporal modulation detection. Additionally, the listeners' day-to-day clinical strategy did not appear to influence the result suggesting that experience with the strategies did not play a significant role. The results underscore the value of acoustic psychophysical measures through the sound processor as a tool in clinical research, because these measures are more sensitive to changes in the processing strategies than traditional clinical measures, e.g. speech understanding. The measures allow for the evaluation of sensitivity to specific acoustic attributes revealing the extent to which different processing strategies affect these basic abilities and could thus improve the efficiency of the development of processing strategies.

[1]  Mark Downing,et al.  Current Steering Creates Additional Pitch Percepts in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2007, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[2]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  Enhancing temporal cues to voice pitch in continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  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.

[4]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Current Steering and Results From Novel Speech Coding Strategies , 2008, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[5]  Belinda A Henry,et al.  The resolution of complex spectral patterns by cochlear implant and normal-hearing listeners. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  N. Viemeister,et al.  Temporal modulation transfer functions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1985, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[7]  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.

[8]  M. Leek,et al.  Auditory temporal resolution in birds: discrimination of harmonic complexes. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Development and Validation of the University of Washington Clinical Assessment of Music Perception Test , 2009, Ear and hearing.

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

[11]  Jay T. Rubinstein,et al.  Clinical Assessment of Music Perception in Cochlear Implant Listeners , 2008, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[12]  Belinda A Henry,et al.  Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Lucas H M Mens,et al.  Current Steering and Current Focusing in Cochlear Implants: Comparison of Monopolar, Tripolar, and Virtual Channel Electrode Configurations , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Evaluation of the Harmony Soundprocessor in Combination With the Speech Coding Strategy HiRes 120 , 2008, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[15]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[17]  Mark Downing,et al.  Using Current Steering to Increase Spectral Resolution in CII and HiRes 90K Users , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[18]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Recipients: Comparison of Standard HiRes and HiRes 120 Sound Processing , 2009, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

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

[20]  Jörn Ostermann,et al.  Signal Processing Strategies for Cochlear Implants Using Current Steering , 2011, EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process..

[21]  H. Dillon,et al.  An international comparison of long‐term average speech spectra , 1994 .