Role of slow temporal modulations in speech identification for cochlear implant users

Abstract Objective: This study aimed to assess whether the capacity of cochlear implant (CI) users to identify speech is determined by their capacity to perceive slow (< 20 Hz) temporal modulations. Design: This was achieved by studying the correlation between (1) phoneme identification in quiet and in a steady-state or fluctuating (8 Hz) noises, and (2) amplitude-modulation detection thresholds (MDTs) at 8 Hz (i.e. slow temporal modulations). Study sample: Twenty-one CI users, unilaterally implanted with the same device, were tested in free field with their everyday clinical processor. Results: Extensive variability across subjects was observed for both phoneme identification and MDTs. Vowel and consonant identification scores in quiet were significantly correlated with MDTs at 8 Hz (r = − 0.47 for consonants, r = − 0.44 for vowels; p < 0.05). When the masker was a steady-state noise, only consonant identification scores tended to correlate with MDTs at 8 Hz (r = − 0.4; p = 0.07). When the masker was a fluctuating noise, consonant and vowel identification scores were not significantly correlated with MDTs at 8 Hz. Conclusions: Sensitivity to slow amplitude modulations is correlated with vowel and consonant perception in CI users. However, reduced sensitivity to slow modulations does not entirely explain the limited capacity of CI recipients to understand speech in noise.

[1]  Daniel Pressnitzer,et al.  Intelligibility of interrupted and interleaved speech for normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implantees , 2010, Hearing Research.

[2]  S. Rosen Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[3]  Deniz Başkent,et al.  Speech recognition in normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss as a function of the number of spectral channels. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  R V Shannon,et al.  Quantitative comparison of electrically and acoustically evoked auditory perception: implications for the location of perceptual mechanisms. , 1993, Progress in brain research.

[5]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  R D Patterson,et al.  Discrimination of temporal asymmetry in cochlear implantees. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  N. Viemeister Temporal modulation transfer functions based upon modulation thresholds. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  A. Beynon,et al.  Factors Affecting Auditory Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: An Update with 2251 Patients , 2012, Audiology and Neurotology.

[10]  Detection of decrements and increments in sinusoids at high overall levels. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Noise Susceptibility of Cochlear Implant Users: The Role of Spectral Resolution and Smearing , 2005, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[12]  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.

[13]  R. Shannon Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Frédéric E. Theunissen,et al.  The Modulation Transfer Function for Speech Intelligibility , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[15]  T Houtgast,et al.  A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  B. Kollmeier,et al.  Modeling auditory processing of amplitude modulation. II. Spectral and temporal integration. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

[19]  A. Beynon,et al.  Pre-, Per- and Postoperative Factors Affecting Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: A New Conceptual Model over Time , 2012, PloS one.

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

[21]  Christian Füllgrabe,et al.  Effect of cochlear damage on the detection of complex temporal envelopes , 2003, Hearing Research.

[22]  Mounya Elhilali,et al.  A spectro-temporal modulation index (STMI) for assessment of speech intelligibility , 2003, Speech Commun..

[23]  Measurement of the Temporal-Modulation Transfer Function for a Single Listener with Cochlear Hearing Loss and Left-Hemisphere Damage , 2000, British journal of audiology.

[24]  R. Shannon,et al.  Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Frédéric Berthommier,et al.  Masking release for consonant features in temporally fluctuating background noise , 2006, Hearing Research.

[27]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  Q. Fu Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users , 2002, Neuroreport.

[29]  Christian Lorenzi,et al.  Speech masking release in listeners with flat hearing loss: Effects of masker fluctuation rate on identification scores and phonetic feature reception , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[30]  Dan Gnansia,et al.  Effect of masker modulation depth on speech masking release , 2008, Hearing Research.

[31]  Christian Lorenzi,et al.  Effects of spectral smearing and temporal fine structure degradation on speech masking release. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  F. Zeng Trends in Cochlear Implants , 2004, Trends in amplification.

[33]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  Robert V Shannon,et al.  Psychophysical measures from electrical stimulation of the human cochlear nucleus , 1990, Hearing Research.

[35]  R Plomp,et al.  The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  M Pelizzone,et al.  Low-pass filtering in amplitude modulation detection associated with vowel and consonant identification in subjects with cochlear implants. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  Amplitude compression in cochlear implants artificially restricts the perception of temporal asymmetry. , 1998, British journal of audiology.

[38]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Acoustic temporal modulation detection and speech perception in cochlear implant listeners. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  Graeme M. Clark,et al.  Factors Predicting Postoperative Sentence Scores in Postlinguistically Deaf Adult Cochlear Implant Patients , 1992, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.