Comparative evaluation of cochlear implant coding strate- gies via a model of the human auditory speech processing

Traditional cochlear implant (CI) coding strategies present some informa- tion about the waveform or spectral features of the speech signal to the electrodes. However, neither of these approaches takes the cochlear travel- ing wave or the auditory nerve cell response into account, though these are given in acoustic hearing. Therefore, a new CI coding strategy based on an auditory model including the above mentioned properties of the healthy cochlea was evaluated and compared with an n-of-m-coding strategy, in which n electrodes out of m possible electrodes are stimulated in each stimulation cycle. The selection of the n electrodes is based on the n highest spectral maxima of the momentary signal. Simulated electrical output of both CI coding strategies served as input to a model of the electrically stimulated auditory system, which consisted of an auditory nerve cell population. The nerve cells generated delta pulses as action potentials in dependence on the spatial and temporal properties of the electric field produced by the electric stimuli. This model is used to predict CI user performance in terms of speech intelligibility and pitch discrimination for both coding strategies. Furthermore, an additional model of normal hearing is presented, the output of which is compared to the neural representation resulting from the modeled CI stimulation. We will show under which circumstances and to what extent an auditory model based coding strategy may outperform a traditional CI speech coding algorithm.

[1]  Frank Baumgarte,et al.  A Physiological Ear Model for the Emulation of Masking , 1999, ORL.

[2]  Stefan Stenfelt,et al.  Hearing one's own voice during phoneme vocalization--transmission by air and bone conduction. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Francis Kuk,et al.  Comparison of vent effects between a solid earmold and a hollow earmold. , 2009, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[4]  Tim Jürgens,et al.  Challenging the speech intelligibility index: macroscopic vs. microscopic prediction of sentence recognition in normal and hearing-impaired listeners , 2010, INTERSPEECH.

[5]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Development and analysis of an International Speech Test Signal (ISTS) , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[6]  Stefan Stenfelt,et al.  A model of the occlusion effect with bone-conducted stimulation , 2007, International journal of audiology.

[7]  Stefan Stenfelt,et al.  Bone-Conducted Sound: Physiological and Clinical Aspects , 2005, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[8]  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.

[9]  S. Stenfelt Middle ear ossicles motion at hearing thresholds with air conduction and bone conduction stimulation. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Robert K Shepherd,et al.  Long‐term sensorineural hearing loss induces functional changes in the rat auditory nerve , 2004, The European journal of neuroscience.

[11]  Ray Meddis,et al.  A revised model of the inner-hair cell and auditory-nerve complex. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Stefan Stenfelt,et al.  Factors contributing to bone conduction: the outer ear. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Niels Søgaard Jensen,et al.  Own voice qualities (OVQ) in hearing-aid users: There is more than just occlusion , 2011, International journal of audiology.

[14]  Francis Kuk,et al.  Vent configurations on subjective and objective occlusion effect. , 2005, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[15]  Antje Hebestreit,et al.  Entwicklung und Evaluation der IDEFICS Intervention , 2010 .

[16]  Brian Taylor,et al.  Real‐world satisfaction and benefit with open‐canal fittings , 2006 .