The effect of channel interactions on speech recognition in cochlear implant subjects: predictions from an acoustic model.

Acoustic models that produce speech signals with information content similar to that provided to cochlear implant users provide a mechanism by which to investigate the effect of various implant-specific processing or hardware parameters independent of other complicating factors. This study compares speech recognition of normal-hearing subjects listening through normal and impaired acoustic models of cochlear implant speech processors. The channel interactions that were simulated to impair the model were based on psychophysical data measured from cochlear implant subjects and include pitch reversals, indiscriminable electrodes, and forward masking effects. In general, spectral interactions degraded speech recognition more than temporal interactions. These effects were frequency dependent with spectral interactions that affect lower-frequency information causing the greatest decrease in speech recognition, and interactions that affect higher-frequency information having the least impact. The results of this study indicate that channel interactions, quantified psychophysically, affect speech recognition to different degrees. Investigation of the effects that channel interactions have on speech recognition may guide future research whose goal is compensating for psychophysically measured channel interactions in cochlear implant subjects.

[1]  Q J Fu,et al.  Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  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.

[3]  D T Lawson,et al.  Coding strategies for multichannel cochlear prostheses. , 1991, The American journal of otology.

[4]  A. Thornton,et al.  Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. , 1978, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[5]  P J Blamey,et al.  Pitch perception for different modes of stimulation using the cochlear multiple-electrode prosthesis. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  R V Shannon,et al.  Forward masked excitation patterns in multielectrode electrical stimulation. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  J. Nedzelski,et al.  Prognostic indicators of speech recognition performance in adult cochlear implant users: a prospective analysis. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[8]  Graeme M. Clark,et al.  The relationship between speech information perceived by cochlear implantees in different spectral regions and electrode discrimination , 1997 .

[9]  D. Kessler,et al.  The Clarion® Multi-Strategy™ Cochlear Implant , 1999, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[10]  J. Tukey,et al.  Transformations Related to the Angular and the Square Root , 1950 .

[11]  R. Shannon,et al.  Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Dirk Van Compernolle,et al.  Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  H J McDermott,et al.  Evaluation of the Nucleus Spectra 22 processor and new speech processing strategy (SPEAK) in postlinguistically deafened adults. , 1995, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[14]  Rainer Hartmann,et al.  Discharge patterns of cat primary auditory fibers with electrical stimulation of the cochlea , 1984, Hearing Research.

[15]  M. Dorman,et al.  Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  G M Clark,et al.  Comparison of two speech processing schemes using normal-hearing subjects. , 1990, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[17]  F B Simmons,et al.  Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. , 1966, Archives of otolaryngology.

[18]  R. Shannon.  Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. I. Basic psychophysics , 1983, Hearing Research.

[19]  R V Shannon,et al.  Effects of amplitude nonlinearity on phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  H J McDermott,et al.  The relationship between speech perception and electrode discrimination in cochlear implantees. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Robert V. Shannon,et al.  Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. II. Channel interaction , 1983, Hearing Research.

[22]  F. Zeng,et al.  Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  R Carhart,et al.  An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. SAM-TR-66-55. , 1966, [Technical report] SAM-TR. USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.

[24]  W. Parkinson,et al.  Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. , 1999, The American journal of otology.

[25]  M Chatterjee.  Temporal mechanisms underlying recovery from forward masking in multielectrode-implant listeners. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Edwin C. Moxon,et al.  Physiological Considerations in Artificial Stimulation of the Inner Ear , 1972, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[27]  S. R. Silverman,et al.  Hearing and deafness , 1970 .

[28]  G M Clark,et al.  An acoustic model of a multiple-channel cochlear implant. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  L M Collins,et al.  Comparison of electrode discrimination, pitch ranking, and pitch scaling data in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. , 1997, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  C S Throckmorton,et al.  Investigating perceptual features of electrode stimulation via a multidimensional scaling paradigm. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  Pollak Am,et al.  Temporal bone histopathology: residents' quiz. Otogenic pneumococci meningitis after transverse temporal bone fracture during childhood. , 1991, American journal of otolaryngology.

[32]  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.

[33]  L H Mens,et al.  Predictors of cochlear implant performance. , 1999, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[34]  G M Clark,et al.  Forward masking patterns produced by intracochlear electrical stimulation of one and two electrode pairs in the human cochlea. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  Laurel Fisher,et al.  The Effect of Long-Term Deafness on Speech Recognition in Postlingually Deafened Adult Clarion® Cochlear Implant Users , 1999, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[36]  M F Dorman,et al.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[37]  D. D. Greenwood.  A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  A. Faulkner,et al.  Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  C S Throckmorton,et al.  Investigation of the effects of temporal and spatial interactions on speech-recognition skills in cochlear-implant subjects. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.