Comparing spatial tuning curves, spectral ripple resolution, and speech perception in cochlear implant users.

Spectral ripple discrimination thresholds were measured in 15 cochlear-implant users with broadband (350-5600 Hz) and octave-band noise stimuli. The results were compared with spatial tuning curve (STC) bandwidths previously obtained from the same subjects. Spatial tuning curve bandwidths did not correlate significantly with broadband spectral ripple discrimination thresholds but did correlate significantly with ripple discrimination thresholds when the rippled noise was confined to an octave-wide passband, centered on the STC's probe electrode frequency allocation. Ripple discrimination thresholds were also measured for octave-band stimuli in four contiguous octaves, with center frequencies from 500 Hz to 4000 Hz. Substantial variations in thresholds with center frequency were found in individuals, but no general trends of increasing or decreasing resolution from apex to base were observed in the pooled data. Neither ripple nor STC measures correlated consistently with speech measures in noise and quiet in the sample of subjects in this study. Overall, the results suggest that spectral ripple discrimination measures provide a reasonable measure of spectral resolution that correlates well with more direct, but more time-consuming, measures of spectral resolution, but that such measures do not always provide a clear and robust predictor of performance in speech perception tasks.

[1]  David A Eddins,et al.  Spectral modulation masking patterns reveal tuning to spectral envelope frequency. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Michael K. Qin,et al.  Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  G M Clark,et al.  Intracochlear factors contributing to psychophysical percepts following cochlear implantation. , 1998, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[4]  IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measurements , 1969, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics.

[5]  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.

[6]  Brian R Glasberg,et al.  Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data , 1990, Hearing Research.

[7]  Alan V. Oppenheim,et al.  Discrete-time signal processing (2nd ed.) , 1999 .

[8]  L M Collins,et al.  Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  R Hinojosa,et al.  HISTOPATHOLOGY OF PROFOUND SENSORINEURAL DEAFNESS a , 1983, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[10]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[11]  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.

[12]  Vladimir V Popov,et al.  Frequency-temporal resolution of hearing measured by rippled noise , 1997, Hearing Research.

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

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

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

[16]  M. Hughes,et al.  Psychophysical and physiological measures of electrical-field interaction in cochlear implants. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Lucas H M Mens,et al.  Current Steering and Current Focusing in Cochlear Implants: Comparison of Monopolar, Tripolar, and Virtual Channel Electrode Configurations , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[18]  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.

[19]  Bryan E. Pfingst,et al.  Across-Site Variation in Detection Thresholds and Maximum Comfortable Loudness Levels for Cochlear Implants , 2004, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[20]  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.

[21]  R. Cowan,et al.  Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking , 2003, Hearing Research.

[22]  Anthony J Spahr,et al.  Relationship between perception of spectral ripple and speech recognition in cochlear implant and vocoder listeners. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Olga N. Milekhina,et al.  Frequency resolving power measured by rippled noise , 1994, Hearing Research.

[24]  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.

[25]  Gail S Donaldson,et al.  Forward-masked spatial tuning curves in cochlear implant users. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  David A Eddins,et al.  Spectral modulation detection as a function of modulation frequency, carrier bandwidth, and carrier frequency region. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.