Modulation masking in cochlear implant listeners: envelope versus tonotopic components.

It is hypothesized that channel-interaction in cochlear implant listeners as measured in a modulation-masking experiment would be influenced by both the tonotopic overlap between masker and signal as well as an interaction between their envelopes. Two experiments were conducted to measure the effects of maskers with noisy and steady-state envelopes on modulation detection by four adult Nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners, as a function of tonotopic distance between the masker and the signal. In the first experiment, we measured detection thresholds for a 50-Hz modulation in the envelope of a 500-Hz carrier pulse train, in the presence of a masker stimulating regions basal and apical to, as well as overlapping with, the signal. The maskers had two kinds of envelopes: (i) amplitude-modulated by flat-spectrum noise (NAM) and (ii) steady-state (SS(peak)) at a level corresponding to the maximum of the noise fluctuation range. In general, modulation thresholds obtained in the presence of the NAM maskers significantly exceeded thresholds obtained with the corresponding SS(peak) maskers. The ratio p of the threshold modulation depth m obtained with the NAM masker to that obtained with the SS(peak) masker was defined as a conservative index of "envelope masking." In the second experiment, p was determined for two different tasks: the detection of modulation at 20 Hz and steady-state intensity increment detection. Compared to the 50-Hz modulation detection results, the ratio p was reduced for the 20-Hz modulation detection task and even more so for the steady-state increment detection task. It is concluded that channel-interaction can be significantly increased in cochlear implant listeners when dynamic stimuli are used in place of steady-state stimuli.

[1]  R V Shannon,et al.  A computer interface for psychophysical and speech research with the Nucleus cochlear implant. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  John J. Galvin,et al.  Auditory streaming in cochlear implant listeners , 2002 .

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

[4]  Mark E. Robert,et al.  Noise Enhances Modulation Sensitivity in Cochlear Implant Listeners: Stochastic Resonance in a Prosthetic Sensory System? , 2001, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[5]  M Chatterjee Effects of stimulation mode on threshold and loudness growth in multielectrode cochlear implants. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  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.

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

[8]  G M Clark,et al.  Loudness summation, masking, and temporal interaction for sensations produced by electric stimulation of two sites in the human cochlea. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  B. Kollmeier,et al.  Modeling auditory processing of amplitude modulation. I. Detection and masking with narrow-band carriers. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  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.

[11]  W A Yost,et al.  Across-critical-band processing of amplitude-modulated tones. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  J. Hall,et al.  Modulation Detection Interference (MDI) in listeners with cochlear hearing loss. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[13]  T Dau,et al.  Modulation detection interference: effects of concurrent and sequential streaming. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  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.

[15]  G M Clark,et al.  Modulation detection interference in cochlear implant subjects. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  T. Houtgast Frequency selectivity in amplitude-modulation detection. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  J H Grose,et al.  Some effects of auditory grouping factors on modulation detection interference (MDI). , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  S P Bacon,et al.  Modulation detection interference under conditions favoring within- or across-channel processing. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Frequency modulation detection interference produced by asynchronous and nonsimultaneous interferers. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  J J Hanekom,et al.  Gap detection as a measure of electrode interaction in cochlear implants. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.