Influence of coding strategies in electric-acoustic hearing: A simulation dedicated to EAS cochlear implant, in the presence of noise

Abstract This work deals with electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS), which keeps the low frequency acoustic information and electrically codes the high frequencies of the signal. One of the goals of the coding strategies is to limit the phenomenon of channel interaction, which can occur in CIs. The “N-of-M” strategy, where only a subset of electrode channels is stimulated, may be of advantage. Generally, this processing is associated with a pre-emphasis filter. Two important parameters for the N-of-M strategy are the number of active channels (N) and the updating rate; the latter corresponds to the stimulation rate. M is the number of electrical channels. The goal of this study was to investigate the influence of these parameters on speech intelligibility in EAS. The signal was presented, in simulation, to normal-hearing (NH) subjects in acoustic (A), electric (E) and electric-acoustic conditions. Recognition performance was measured in quiet and in the presence of background noise (cafeteria noise). Signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) ranged from 0 to +12 dB. Fifteen listeners participated in the experiment. The N values ranged from 2 to 10 (out of 10); M was 10. The frame updating rate was 250 updates per second (ups) and 1000 ups. Results showed that increasing N from 2 to 10 improved speech intelligibility, especially in the presence of the background noise, under E and EAS conditions. In noisy situations, 2/10 coupled with a high-pass pre-emphasis filter led to results similar to the 10/10 condition. Changing the frame rate from 250 ups to 1000 ups did not modify the performance. Future investigations on patients using EAS are now needed to validate the performance seen with NH listeners. Above all, in the strategy 2 out of 10, the number of pulses per second can be divided by 20, and when the pre-emphasis is used only a slight decrease in performance is expected; this is of interest when interaction between the electrodes corrupts the performance.

[1]  Alexandra Kaider,et al.  Cochlear Implant Channel Separation and Its Influence on Speech Perception – Implications for a New Electrode Design , 2007, Audiology and Neurotology.

[2]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Unintelligible Low-Frequency Sound Enhances Simulated Cochlear-Implant Speech Recognition in Noise , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[3]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Preservation of Hearing in Cochlear Implant Surgery: Advantages of Combined Electrical and Acoustical Speech Processing , 2005, The Laryngoscope.

[4]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Effects of electrode design and configuration on channel interactions , 2006, Hearing Research.

[5]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Combining acoustic and electrical hearing. , 2003, The Laryngoscope.

[6]  Ying-Yee Kong,et al.  Improved speech recognition in noise in simulated binaurally combined acoustic and electric stimulation. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[8]  Robert V. Shannon,et al.  Effect of Stimulation Rate on Cochlear Implant Users’ Phoneme, Word and Sentence Recognition in Quiet and in Noise , 2010, Audiology and Neurotology.

[9]  M F Dorman,et al.  Recognition of Sentences in Noise by Normal-Hearing Listeners Using Simulations of Speak-Type Cochlear Implant Signal Processors , 2000, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[10]  M F Dorman,et al.  Recognition of Monosyllabic Words by Cochlear Implant Patients and by Normal-Hearing Subjects Listening to Words Processed through Cochlear Implant Signal Processing Strategies , 2000, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[11]  Robert V Shannon,et al.  Effects of Stimulation Rate on Speech Recognition with Cochlear Implants , 2005, Audiology and Neurotology.

[12]  Clemens Zierhofer,et al.  Temporal fine structure in cochlear implants: Preliminary speech perception results in Cantonese-speaking implant users , 2010, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[13]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

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

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

[16]  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.

[17]  T. Lenarz,et al.  Impact of Low-Frequency Hearing , 2009, Audiology and Neurotology.

[18]  Fei Chen,et al.  Contribution of Consonant Landmarks to Speech Recognition in Simulated Acoustic-Electric Hearing , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[19]  William M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1991, Nature.

[20]  Silke Helbig,et al.  Ipsilateral Electric Acoustic Stimulation of the Auditory System: Results of Long-Term Hearing Preservation , 2006, Audiology and Neurotology.

[21]  P Seligman,et al.  Architecture of the Spectra 22 speech processor. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[22]  G M Clark,et al.  Forward masking patterns produced by intracochlear electrical stimulation of one and two electrode pairs in the human cochlea. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Robert V. Shannon,et al.  Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. II. Channel interaction , 1983, Hearing Research.

[24]  Christopher A Brown,et al.  Low-frequency speech cues and simulated electric-acoustic hearing. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  H J McDermott,et al.  A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Michael K. Qin,et al.  Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  J K Shallop,et al.  Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 Channel Cochlear Implant System. , 1994, The American journal of otology.

[29]  R V Shannon,et al.  Forward masking in patients with cochlear implants. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  Jacob Oleson,et al.  Music Perception with Cochlear Implants and Residual Hearing , 2006, Audiology and Neurotology.

[31]  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.

[32]  Ilona Anderson,et al.  Electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a multi-centre investigation , 2008, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[33]  Komal Arora,et al.  Effects of stimulation rate on modulation detection and speech recognition by cochlear implant users , 2011, International journal of audiology.

[34]  Marco Pelizzone,et al.  Channel interactions in patients using the Ineraid multichannel cochlear implant , 1993, Hearing Research.

[35]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Residual Hearing Conservation and Electroacoustic Stimulation with the Nucleus 24 Contour Advance Cochlear Implant , 2006, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[36]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  A high rate n-of-m speech processing strategy for the first generation Clarion cochlear implant , 2009, International journal of audiology.

[37]  H J McDermott,et al.  Perceptual Performance of Subjects with Cochlear Implants Using the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor (SMSP) and the Mini Speech Processor (MSP) , 1993, Ear and hearing.

[38]  H J McDermott,et al.  Evaluation of the Nucleus Spectra 22 processor and new speech processing strategy (SPEAK) in postlinguistically deafened adults. , 1995, Acta oto-laryngologica.

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

[40]  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.

[41]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[42]  I. Hochmair,et al.  Cochlear Implants : State of the Art and a Glimpse Into the Future , 2006 .

[43]  Michael F Dorman,et al.  A comparison of the speech understanding provided by acoustic models of fixed-channel and channel-picking signal processors for cochlear implants. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[44]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Fundamental frequency discrimination and speech perception in noise in cochlear implant simulations , 2007, Hearing Research.

[45]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Development and Evaluation of an Improved Cochlear Implant Electrode Design for Electric Acoustic Stimulation , 2004, The Laryngoscope.

[46]  Eric Truy,et al.  A model-based analysis of the “combined-stimulation advantage” , 2011, Hearing Research.

[47]  R. Hartmann,et al.  Electric-Acoustic Stimulation of the Auditory System , 1999, ORL.

[48]  Anna Piotrowska,et al.  Preservation of low frequency hearing in partial deafness cochlear implantation (PDCI) using the round window surgical approach , 2007, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[49]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  The Advanced Bionics High Resolution Mode: Stimulation rates up to 5000 pps , 2010, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[50]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Evaluation of Advanced Bionics high resolution mode , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[51]  B. S. Wilson,et al.  Comparative studies of speech processing strategies for cochlear implants , 1988, The Laryngoscope.

[52]  T. Lenarz,et al.  Performance and Preference for ACE Stimulation Rates Obtained with Nucleus RP 8 and Freedom System , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[53]  Jont B. Allen,et al.  Short term spectral analysis, synthesis, and modification by discrete Fourier transform , 1977 .

[54]  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.

[55]  L. Collet,et al.  Model for Understanding the Influence of Some Parameters in Cochlear Implantation , 1992, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[56]  M M Merzenich,et al.  Multichannel cochlear implants. Channel interactions and processor design. , 1984, Archives of otolaryngology.

[57]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Acoustic Simulations of Combined Electric and Acoustic Hearing (EAS) , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[58]  R V Shannon,et al.  Effects of electrode location and spacing on phoneme recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[59]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Spectral and Temporal Cues in Cochlear Implant Speech Perception , 2006, Ear and hearing.

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

[61]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Nucleus® 24 Advanced Encoder Conversion Study: Performance versus Preference , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[62]  A. Hodges,et al.  Conservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[63]  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.

[64]  G M Clark,et al.  Loudness summation, masking, and temporal interaction for sensations produced by electric stimulation of two sites in the human cochlea. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[65]  Philipos C Loizou,et al.  A glimpsing account for the benefit of simulated combined acoustic and electric hearing. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[66]  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.

[67]  M. Pelizzone,et al.  Channel interactions with high-rate biphasic electrical stimulation in cochlear implant subjects , 2003, Hearing Research.

[68]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Cortical Responses to Cochlear Implant Stimulation: Channel Interactions , 2004, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[69]  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.

[70]  Deniz Başkent,et al.  Recognition of temporally interrupted and spectrally degraded sentences with additional unprocessed low-frequency speech , 2010, Hearing Research.

[71]  H. Traunmüller.  Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale , 1990 .

[72]  John C Middlebrooks,et al.  Effects of cochlear-implant pulse rate and inter-channel timing on channel interactions and thresholds. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[73]  Blake S. Wilson,et al.  Speech processors for cochlear prostheses , 1988, Proc. IEEE.

[74]  R. Shepherd,et al.  Reduction in excitability of the auditory nerve following electrical stimulation at high stimulus rates , 1995, Hearing Research.