A Binaural Cochlear Implant Sound Coding Strategy Inspired by the Contralateral Medial Olivocochlear Reflex

Objectives: In natural hearing, cochlear mechanical compression is dynamically adjusted via the efferent medial olivocochlear reflex (MOCR). These adjustments probably help understanding speech in noisy environments and are not available to the users of current cochlear implants (CIs). The aims of the present study are to: (1) present a binaural CI sound processing strategy inspired by the control of cochlear compression provided by the contralateral MOCR in natural hearing; and (2) assess the benefits of the new strategy for understanding speech presented in competition with steady noise with a speech-like spectrum in various spatial configurations of the speech and noise sources. Design: Pairs of CI sound processors (one per ear) were constructed to mimic or not mimic the effects of the contralateral MOCR on compression. For the nonmimicking condition (standard strategy or STD), the two processors in a pair functioned similarly to standard clinical processors (i.e., with fixed back-end compression and independently of each other). When configured to mimic the effects of the MOCR (MOC strategy), the two processors communicated with each other and the amount of back-end compression in a given frequency channel of each processor in the pair decreased/increased dynamically (so that output levels dropped/increased) with increases/decreases in the output energy from the corresponding frequency channel in the contralateral processor. Speech reception thresholds in speech-shaped noise were measured for 3 bilateral CI users and 2 single-sided deaf unilateral CI users. Thresholds were compared for the STD and MOC strategies in unilateral and bilateral listening conditions and for three spatial configurations of the speech and noise sources in simulated free-field conditions: speech and noise sources colocated in front of the listener, speech on the left ear with noise in front of the listener, and speech on the left ear with noise on the right ear. In both bilateral and unilateral listening, the electrical stimulus delivered to the test ear(s) was always calculated as if the listeners were wearing bilateral processors. Results: In both unilateral and bilateral listening conditions, mean speech reception thresholds were comparable with the two strategies for colocated speech and noise sources, but were at least 2 dB lower (better) with the MOC than with the STD strategy for spatially separated speech and noise sources. In unilateral listening conditions, mean thresholds improved with increasing the spatial separation between the speech and noise sources regardless of the strategy but the improvement was significantly greater with the MOC strategy. In bilateral listening conditions, thresholds improved significantly with increasing the speech-noise spatial separation only with the MOC strategy. Conclusions: The MOC strategy (1) significantly improved the intelligibility of speech presented in competition with a spatially separated noise source, both in unilateral and bilateral listening conditions; (2) produced significant spatial release from masking in bilateral listening conditions, something that did not occur with fixed compression; and (3) enhanced spatial release from masking in unilateral listening conditions. The MOC strategy as implemented here, or a modified version of it, may be usefully applied in CIs and in hearing aids.

[1]  W. G. Gardner,et al.  HRTF measurements of a KEMAR , 1995 .

[2]  R. Litovsky,et al.  Interaural Level Differences Do Not Suffice for Restoring Spatial Release from Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Listening , 2012, PloS one.

[3]  JoAnn McGee,et al.  Long-Term Effects of Sectioning the Olivocochlear Bundle in Neonatal Cats , 1998, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[4]  Volker Hohmann,et al.  Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies II , 2015, Trends in hearing.

[5]  Michael G. Heinz,et al.  Modeling the Anti-masking Effects of the Olivocochlear Reflex in Auditory Nerve Responses to Tones in Sustained Noise , 2012, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[6]  Enrique A. Lopez-Poveda,et al.  Behavioral Estimates of the Contribution of Inner and Outer Hair Cell Dysfunction to Individualized Audiometric Loss , 2012, Front. Neurosci..

[7]  Nigel P. Cooper,et al.  Efferent‐mediated control of basilar membrane motion , 2006, The Journal of physiology.

[8]  Tim Jürgens,et al.  A frequency-selective feedback model of auditory efferent suppression and its implications for the recognition of speech in noise. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Blake S Wilson,et al.  Two New Directions in Speech Processor Design for Cochlear Implants , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[10]  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Effects of dynamic range compression on spatial selective auditory attention in normal-hearing listeners. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Sid P. Bacon,et al.  Overview of Auditory Compression , 2004 .

[12]  James M. Kates,et al.  Digital hearing aids. , 2008, Harvard health letter.

[13]  Jacques A Grange,et al.  Realising the head-shadow benefit to cochlear implant users , 2015 .

[14]  J. Guinan Olivocochlear Efferents: Anatomy, Physiology, Function, and the Measurement of Efferent Effects in Humans , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[15]  Sergei Kochkin Consumers Rate Improvements Sought in Hearing Instruments , 2002 .

[16]  Enrique A. Lopez-Poveda,et al.  Contralateral efferent suppression of human hearing sensitivity , 2015, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[17]  Enrique A Lopez-Poveda,et al.  Across-frequency behavioral estimates of the contribution of inner and outer hair cell dysfunction to individualized audiometric loss , 2014, Frontiers in neuroscience.

[18]  E·A·洛佩斯-波韦达 Sound enhancement for cochlear implants , 2015 .

[19]  Ray Meddis,et al.  A computer model of auditory efferent suppression: implications for the recognition of speech in noise. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Chris James,et al.  Contralateral Masking in Cochlear Implant Users with Residual Hearing in the Non-Implanted Ear , 2001, Audiology and Neurotology.

[21]  Annette Hurley,et al.  Contralateral suppression of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions in humans: intensity effects , 1996, Hearing Research.

[22]  Watjana Lilaonitkul,et al.  Medial Olivocochlear Efferent Reflex in Humans: Otoacoustic Emission (OAE) Measurement Issues and the Advantages of Stimulus Frequency OAEs , 2003, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[23]  Volker Hohmann,et al.  Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies I : Instrumental Evaluation , 2015 .

[24]  B Kollmeier,et al.  Real-time multiband dynamic compression and noise reduction for binaural hearing aids. , 1993, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[25]  SungHee Kim,et al.  Effects of age on speech understanding in normal hearing listeners: Relationship between the auditory efferent system and speech intelligibility in noise , 2006, Speech Commun..

[26]  James M. Kates Binaural compression system , 2010 .

[27]  Watjana Lilaonitkul,et al.  Reflex control of the human inner ear: a half-octave offset in medial efferent feedback that is consistent with an efferent role in the control of masking. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[28]  William M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1991, Nature.

[29]  Enrique A. Lopez-Poveda,et al.  Contralateral Efferent Reflex Effects on Threshold and Suprathreshold Psychoacoustical Tuning Curves at Low and High Frequencies , 2013, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[30]  Mario A. Ruggero,et al.  The effects of acoustic trauma, other cochlear injury and death on basilar-membrane responses to sound , 1996 .

[31]  Ian M Wiggins,et al.  Linking dynamic-range compression across the ears can improve speech intelligibility in spatially separated noise. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  C. Micheyl,et al.  Medial olivocochlear efferent system in humans studied with amplitude-modulated tones. , 1997, Journal of neurophysiology.

[33]  Christopher A Brown Binaural Enhancement for Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users , 2014, Ear and hearing.

[34]  Volker Hohmann,et al.  Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies I , 2015, Trends in hearing.

[35]  J. Guinan,et al.  Time-course of the human medial olivocochlear reflex. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  Watjana Lilaonitkul,et al.  Human Medial Olivocochlear Reflex: Effects as Functions of Contralateral, Ipsilateral, and Bilateral Elicitor Bandwidths , 2009, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[37]  M. Charles Liberman,et al.  Efferent Feedback Minimizes Cochlear Neuropathy from Moderate Noise Exposure , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[38]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  Paul J Boyd,et al.  Effects of Programming Threshold and Maplaw Settings on Acoustic Thresholds and Speech Discrimination with the MED-EL COMBI 40+ Cochlear Implant , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[40]  Ann Chi Yan Wong,et al.  Type II spiral ganglion afferent neurons drive medial olivocochlear reflex suppression of the cochlear amplifier , 2015, Nature Communications.

[41]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Central masking with bilateral cochlear implants. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  Blake S Wilson,et al.  Roles of the Contralateral Efferent Reflex in Hearing Demonstrated with Cochlear Implants. , 2016, Advances in experimental medicine and biology.

[43]  L. Robles,et al.  Mechanics of the mammalian cochlea. , 2001, Physiological reviews.