Learning Effects in Psychophysical Tests of Spectral and Temporal Resolution

Objectives: Psychophysical tests of spectral and temporal resolution, such as the spectral-ripple discrimination task and the temporal modulation detection test, are valuable tools for the evaluation of cochlear implant performance. Both tests correlate with speech intelligibility and are reported to show no instantaneous learning effect. However, some of our previous trials have suggested that there is a learning effect over time. The aim of this study was to investigate the test-retest reliability of the two tests when measured over time. Design: Ten adult cochlear implant recipients, experienced with the HiResolution speech coding strategy, participated in this study. Spectral ripple discrimination and temporal modulation detection ability with the HiResolution strategy were assessed both before and after participation in a previous trial that evaluated two research speech coding strategies after 2 weeks of home-usage. Each test was repeated six times on each test day. Results: No improvement was observed for same-day testing. However, comparison of the mean spectral ripple discrimination scores before and after participation in the take-home trial showed improvement from 3.4 to 4.8 ripples per octave (p < 0.001). The mean temporal modulation detection thresholds improved from −15.2 to −17.4 dB (p = 0.035). Conclusions: There was a clear learning effect over time in the spectral and temporal resolution tasks, but not during same-day testing. Learning effects may stem from perceptual learning, task learning, or a combination of those two factors. These results highlight the importance of a proper research design for evaluation of novel speech coding strategies, where the baseline measurement is repeated at the end of the trial to avoid false-positive results as a consequence of learning effects.

[1]  David M Landsberger,et al.  The development of a modified spectral ripple test. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  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.

[3]  J. Rubinstein,et al.  Psychoacoustic Abilities Associated With Music Perception in Cochlear Implant Users , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[4]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Long‐Term Performance of Clarion 1.0 Cochlear Implant Users , 2007, The Laryngoscope.

[5]  Z Liu,et al.  Perceptual learning in motion discrimination that generalizes across motion directions. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  Christine Brenner,et al.  Postlingual adult performance in noise with HiRes 120 and ClearVoice Low, Medium, and High , 2013, Cochlear implants international.

[7]  S. Staller,et al.  Speech perception abilities of adult and pediatric Nucleus implant recipients using the Spectral Peak (SPEAK) coding strategy. , 1997, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

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

[9]  R. Shannon Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  B. Fraysse,et al.  Evidence that cochlear-implanted deaf patients are better multisensory integrators , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  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.

[12]  Daphna Weinshall,et al.  Mechanisms of generalization in perceptual learning , 1998, Vision Research.

[13]  Katrien Vermeire,et al.  Better Speech Recognition in Noise with the Fine Structure Processing Coding Strategy , 2010, ORL.

[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]  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.

[16]  Ning Zhou,et al.  Deactivating stimulation sites based on low-rate thresholds improves spectral ripple and speech reception thresholds in cochlear implant users. , 2017, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Assessing the role of spectral and intensity cues in spectral ripple detection and discrimination in cochlear-implant users. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Relationship between channel interaction and spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant users. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Validation of a Clinical Assessment of Spectral-Ripple Resolution for Cochlear Implant Users , 2014, Ear and hearing.

[20]  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.

[21]  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.

[22]  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.

[23]  Jeroen J Briaire,et al.  Restoring speech perception with cochlear implants by spanning defective electrode contacts , 2013, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[24]  J. Rubinstein,et al.  Nonlinguistic Outcome Measures in Adult Cochlear Implant Users Over the First Year of Implantation , 2016, Ear and hearing.

[25]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Acoustic temporal modulation detection and speech perception in cochlear implant listeners. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  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.

[27]  Antoine J. Shahin,et al.  Acoustic Cue Weighting by Adults with Cochlear Implants: A Mismatch Negativity Study , 2016, Ear and hearing.

[28]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Sensitivity of psychophysical measures to signal processor modifications in cochlear implant users , 2010, Hearing Research.

[29]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Evidence of across-channel processing for spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant listeners. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  Colette M. McKay,et al.  Temporal modulation transfer functions in cochlear implantees using a method that limits overall loudness cues , 2012, Hearing Research.

[31]  J. Firszt,et al.  Factors Affecting Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients Implanted With a Perimodiolar Electrode Array Located in Scala Tympani , 2016, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[32]  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.