Sound Coding in Cochlear Implants: From electric pulses to hearing

Cochlear implantation is a life-changing intervention for people with a severe hearing impairment [1]. For most cochlear implant (CI) users, speech intelligibility is satisfactory in quiet environments. Although modern CIs provide up to 22 stimulation channels, information transfer is still limited for the perception of fine spectrotemporal details in many types of sound. These details contribute to the perception of music and speech in common listening situations, such as where background noise is present. Over the past several decades, many different sound processing strategies have been developed to provide more details about acoustic signals to CI users. In this article, progress in sound coding for CIs is reviewed. Starting from a basic strategy, the current commercially most-used signal processing schemes are discussed, as well as recent developments in coding strategies that aim to improve auditory perception. This article focuses particularly on the stimulation strategies, which convert sound signals into patterns of nerve stimulation. The neurophysiological rationale behind some of these strategies is discussed and aspects of CI performance that require further improvement are identified.

[1]  Colleen Psarros,et al.  Speech Recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS Speech Coding Strategies in Newly Implanted Adults , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[2]  R. Tyler,et al.  Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Alexandra Kaider,et al.  Envelope Versus Fine Structure Speech Coding Strategy: A Crossover Study , 2011, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[4]  E. Owens,et al.  An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing , 1997 .

[5]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Mimicking the human ear , 1998, IEEE Signal Process. Mag..

[6]  R. Fay,et al.  Pitch : neural coding and perception , 2005 .

[7]  Hugh J. McDermott,et al.  Pitch ranking ability of cochlear implant recipients: a comparison of sound-processing strategies. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Gail S Donaldson,et al.  Within-Subjects Comparison of the HiRes and Fidelity120 Speech Processing Strategies: Speech Perception and Its Relation to Place-Pitch Sensitivity , 2011, Ear and hearing.

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

[10]  Jaime A. Undurraga,et al.  The Polarity Sensitivity of the Electrically Stimulated Human Auditory Nerve Measured at the Level of the Brainstem , 2013, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[11]  Hugh McDermott,et al.  Speech Perception and Localisation with SCORE Bimodal: A Loudness Normalisation Strategy for Combined Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aid Stimulation , 2012, PloS one.

[12]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Using Temporal Modulation Sensitivity to Select Stimulation Sites for Processor MAPs in Cochlear Implant Listeners , 2013, Audiology and Neurotology.

[13]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Towards a Closed-Loop Cochlear Implant System: Application of Embedded Monitoring of Peripheral and Central Neural Activity , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[14]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Modulation Enhancement in the Electrical Signal Improves Perception of Interaural Time Differences with Bimodal Stimulation , 2014, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[15]  Hugh J. McDermott,et al.  Application of loudness models to sound processing for cochlear implants. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[17]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Speech perception with F0mod, a cochlear implant pitch coding strategy , 2015, International journal of audiology.

[18]  Andrew E. Vandali,et al.  Development of a temporal fundamental frequency coding strategy for cochlear implants. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[20]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Perception of Mandarin Chinese with cochlear implants using enhanced temporal pitch cues , 2012, Hearing Research.

[21]  B Meyer,et al.  LONG‐TERM RESULTS OF THE MULTICHANNEL COCHLEAR IMPLANT a , 1983, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[22]  Bertrand Delgutte,et al.  Auditory Neural Processing of Speech , 2002 .

[23]  H J McDermott,et al.  The perception of temporal patterns for electrical stimulation presented at one or two intracochlear sites. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Blake S. Wilson,et al.  The design and function of cochlear implants , 2004 .

[25]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Speech onset enhancement improves intelligibility in adverse listening conditions for cochlear implant users , 2016, Hearing Research.

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

[27]  Clemens Zierhofer,et al.  Clinical Trial Results with the MED-EL Fine Structure Processing Coding Strategy in Experienced Cochlear Implant Users , 2012, ORL.

[28]  Matthijs Killian,et al.  Clinical evaluation of cochlear implant sound coding taking into account conjectural masking functions, MP3000™ , 2011, Cochlear implants international.

[29]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear Implants: System Design, Integration, and Evaluation , 2008, IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering.