Reception of Environmental Sounds Through Cochlear Implants

Objective: The objective of this study was to measure the performance of persons with cochlear implants on a test of environmental-sound reception. Design: The reception of environmental sounds was studied using a test employing closed sets of 10 sounds in each of four different settings (General Home, Kitchen, Office, and Outside). The participants in the study were 11 subjects with cochlear implants. Identification testing was conducted under each of the four closed sets of stimuli using a one-interval, 10-alternative, forced-choice procedure. The data were summarized in terms of overall percent correct identification scores and information transfer (IT) in bits. Confusion patterns were described using a hierarchical-clustering analysis. In addition, individual performance on the environmental-sound task was related to the ability to recognize isolated words through the cochlear implant alone. Results: Levels of performance were similar across the four stimulus sets. Mean scores across subjects ranged from 45.3% correct (and IT of 1.5 bits) to 93.8% correct (and IT of 3.1 bits). Performance on the environmental-sound identification test was roughly related to NU-6 word recognition ability. Specifically, those subjects with word scores greater than 34% correct performed at levels of 80 to 94% on environmental-sound recognition, whereas subjects with word scores less than 34% had greater difficulty on the task. Results of the hierarchical clustering analysis, conducted on two groups of subjects (a high-performing [HP] group and a low-performing [LP] group), indicated that confusions were confined to three or four specific stimuli for the HP subjects and that larger clusters of confused stimuli were observed in the data of the LP group. Signals with distinct temporal-envelope characteristics were easily perceived by all subjects, and confused items tended to share similar overall durations and temporal envelopes. Conclusions: Temporal-envelope cues appear to play a large role in the identification of environmental sounds through cochlear implants. The finer distinctions made by the HP group compared with the LP group may be related to a better ability both to resolve temporal differences and to use gross spectral cues. These findings are qualitatively consistent with patterns of confusions observed in the reception of speech segments through cochlear implants.

[1]  W M Rabinowitz,et al.  Relations among different measures of speech reception in subjects using a cochlear implant. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  B J Gantz,et al.  Speech perception performance in experienced cochlear-implant patients receiving the SPEAK processing strategy in the Nucleus Spectra-22 cochlear implant. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[3]  T. Välimaa,et al.  Phoneme recognition and confusions with multichannel cochlear implants: consonants. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[4]  J Youngblood,et al.  Ineraid® (utah) multichannel cochlear implants , 1988, The Laryngoscope.

[5]  G S Donaldson,et al.  Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  A van Wieringen,et al.  Natural vowel and consonant recognition by Laura cochlear implantees. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[7]  S D Stephens,et al.  The use of qualitative questionnaires in patients having and being considered for cochlear implants. , 1997, Clinical otolaryngology and allied sciences.

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

[9]  A E Vandali,et al.  Emphasis of short-duration acoustic speech cues for cochlear implant users. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  J. Kirman Tactile communication of speech: a review and an analysis. , 1973, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  Effects of Context on the Identification of Everyday Sounds , 1991 .

[12]  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.

[13]  R S Tyler,et al.  Consonant recognition by some of the better cochlear-implant patients. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[15]  B J Gantz,et al.  Performance over time with a nucleus or Ineraid cochlear implant. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

[16]  P J Abbas,et al.  Multivariate Predictors of Audiological Success with Multichannel Cochlear Implants , 1993, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[17]  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.

[18]  I Summers Evaluation of tactile aids. , 1989, British journal of audiology.

[19]  H Lane,et al.  Speech of cochlear implant patients: a longitudinal study of vowel production. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  M W Skinner,et al.  Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the multipeak (MPEAK) and spectral peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies II. Consonants. , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[21]  G. A. Miller What is information measurement , 1953 .

[22]  W. Grove Cluster Analysis for Social Scientists , 1984 .

[23]  J Wouters,et al.  Enhancing the speech envelope of continuous interleaved sampling processors for cochlear implants. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  J. Ballas Common factors in the identification of an assortment of brief everyday sounds. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  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.

[26]  Bruce J. Gantz,et al.  Psychological Predictors of Audiological Outcomes of Multichannel Cochlear Implants: Preliminary Findings , 1991, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[27]  D K Eddington,et al.  SPEECH RECOGNITION IN DEAF SUBJECTS WITH MULTICHANNEL INTRACOCHLEAR ELECTRODES a , 1983, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[28]  R. M. Schafer,et al.  The tuning of the world , 1977 .

[29]  M W Skinner,et al.  Identification of Speech by Cochlear Implant Recipients with the Multipeak (MPEAK) and Spectral Peak (SPEAK) Speech Coding Strategies I. Vowels , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[30]  Charlotte M Reed,et al.  The Reception of Environmental Sounds Through Wearable Tactual Aids , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[31]  Brian Gygi,et al.  Spectral-temporal factors in the identification of environmental sounds. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  D W Proops,et al.  Outcomes from adult implantation, the first 100 patients , 1999, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[33]  R. Tyler Advantages of disadvantages expected and reported by cochlear implant patients. , 1994, The American journal of otology.

[34]  Benjamin Munson,et al.  Patterns of phoneme perception errors by listeners with cochlear implants as a function of overall speech perception ability. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  C M Reed,et al.  Research on tactile communication of speech: a review. , 1982, ASHA monographs.

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

[37]  P. Sopp Cluster analysis. , 1996, Veterinary immunology and immunopathology.