The Effect of Reduced Dynamic Range on Speech Understanding: Implications for Patients with Cochlear Implants

Objective: To determine the effect of reduced dynamic range on speech understanding when the speech signals are processed in a manner similar to a 6‐channel cochlear implant speech processor. Design: Signals were processed in a manner similar to a 6‐channel cochlear implant processor and output as a sum of sine waves with frequencies equal to the center frequencies of the analysis filters. The amplitudes of the sine waves were compressed in a systematic fashion to simulate the effect of reduced dynamic range. The compressed signals were presented to 10 normal‐hearing listeners for identification. Results: There was a significant effect of compression for all test materials. The effect of the compression on speech understanding was different for the three test materials (vowels, consonants, and sentences). Vowel recognition was affected the most by the compression, and consonant recognition was affected the least by the compression. Feature analysis indicated that the reception of place information was affected the most. Sentence recognition was moderately affected by the compression. Conclusions: Dynamic range should affect the speech perception abilities of cochlear implant users. Our results suggest that a relatively wide dynamic range is needed for a high level of vowel recognition and a relatively small dynamic range is sufficient to maintain consonant recognition. We infer from this outcome that, if other factors were held equal, an implant patient with a small dynamic range could achieve moderately high scores on tests of consonant recognition but poor performance on vowel recognition, and that it is more likely for an implant patient with a large dynamic range to obtain high scores on vowel recognition than for an implant patient with a small dynamic range.

[1]  J. Hillenbrand,et al.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  M. Dorman,et al.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  G S Donaldson,et al.  Intensity discrimination as a function of stimulus level with electric stimulation. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  M F Dorman,et al.  The recognition of vowels produced by men, women, boys, and girls by cochlear implant patients using a six-channel CIS processor. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  M F Dorman,et al.  The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[8]  M F Dorman,et al.  The Identification of Speech in Noise by Cochlear Implant Patients and Normal‐Hearing Listeners Using 6‐Channel Signal Processors , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[9]  M. Dorman,et al.  Loudness Balance between Acoustic and Electric Stimulation by a Patient with a Multichannel Cochlear Implant , 1993, Ear and hearing.

[10]  P C Loizou,et al.  On the number of channels needed to understand speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  F. Zeng,et al.  Loudness balance between electric and acoustic stimulation , 1992, Hearing Research.

[12]  Graeme M. Clark,et al.  Factors Predicting Postoperative Sentence Scores in Postlinguistically Deaf Adult Cochlear Implant Patients , 1992, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[13]  C W Turner,et al.  Effect of single-channel compression on temporal speech information. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[14]  W. M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Effects of Channel‐to‐Electrode Mappings on Speech Reception with the Ineraid Cochlear Implant , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[15]  M F Dorman,et al.  The Identification of Consonants and Vowels by Cochlear Implant Patients Using a 6‐Channel Continuous Interleaved Sampling Processor and by Normal‐Hearing Subjects Using Simulations of Processors with Two to Nine Channels , 1998, Ear and hearing.