Comodulation Masking Release induced by controlled electrical stimulation of auditory nerve fibers

Normal-hearing listeners can perceptually segregate concurrent sound sources, but listeners with significant hearing loss or who wear a cochlear implant (CI) lag behind in this ability. Perceptual grouping mechanisms are essential to segregate concurrent sound sources and affect comodulation masking release (CMR). Thus, CMR measurements in CI users could shed light on segregation cues needed for forming and grouping of auditory objects. CMR illustrates the fact that detection of a target sound embedded in a fluctuating masker is improved by the addition of masker energy remote from the target frequency, provided the envelope fluctuations across masker components are coherent. We modified such a CMR experiment to electrically-induced hearing using direct stimulation and measured the effect in 21 CI users. Cluster analysis of our data revealed two groups: one showed no or only small CMR of 0.1 dB ± 2.7 (N = 14) and a second group achieved a CMR of 10.7 dB ± 3.2 (N = 7), a value that is close to the enhancement observed in a comparable acoustic experiment in normal-hearing listeners (12.9 dB ± 2.6, N = 6). Interestingly, we observed that CMR in CI users may relate to hearing etiology and duration of hearing loss pre-implantation. Our study demonstrates for the first time that a substantial minority of cochlear-implant listeners (about a third) can show significant CMR. This outcome motivates the development of physiologically inspired multi-band gain control and/or different coding strategies for these groups in order to better preserve coherent modulation and thus to take advantage of the individual remaining capabilities to analyze spectro-temporal patterns.

[1]  Israel Nelken,et al.  Responses of auditory-cortex neurons to structural features of natural sounds , 1999, Nature.

[2]  Stephan M. A. Ernst,et al.  Effects of sequential streaming on auditory masking using psychoacoustics and auditory evoked potentials , 2012, Hearing Research.

[3]  J W Hall,et al.  Comodulation masking release for speech stimuli. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Brian Roberts,et al.  Auditory stream segregation of tone sequences in cochlear implant listeners , 2007, Hearing Research.

[5]  Joseph W. Hall,et al.  Detection in noise by spectro-temporal pattern analysis. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  R. Altschuler,et al.  Mechanism of electrical stimulation-induced neuroprotection: effects of verapamil on protection of primary auditory afferents , 2003, Brain Research.

[7]  Bernhard U Seeber,et al.  Indications for temporal fine structure contribution to co-modulation masking release. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  B C Moore,et al.  Comodulation masking release (CMR): effects of signal frequency, flanking-band frequency, masker bandwidth, flanking-band level, and monotic versus dichotic presentation of the flanking band. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  B C Moore,et al.  Co-modulation masking release: spectro-temporal pattern analysis in hearing. , 1990, British journal of audiology.

[10]  T. Dau,et al.  Auditory stream formation affects comodulation masking release retroactively. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Daniel Pressnitzer,et al.  The psychophysics and physiology of comodulation masking release , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

[12]  R. Snyder,et al.  Spatial selectivity to intracochlear electrical stimulation in the inferior colliculus is degraded after long-term deafness in cats. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[13]  Albert S. Bregman,et al.  The Auditory Scene. (Book Reviews: Auditory Scene Analysis. The Perceptual Organization of Sound.) , 1990 .

[14]  Brian Roberts,et al.  Auditory stream segregation in cochlear implant listeners: measures based on temporal discrimination and interleaved melody recognition. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Nucleus® 24 Advanced Encoder Conversion Study: Performance versus Preference , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[16]  F. Zeng,et al.  Loudness balance between electric and acoustic stimulation , 1992, Hearing Research.

[17]  T D Carrell,et al.  The effect of amplitude comodulation on auditory object formation in sentence perception , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Comodulation masking release: effects of training and experimental design on use of within- and across-channel cues. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  H. Spoendlin,et al.  Retrograde degeneration of the cochlear nerve. , 1975, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[20]  B. Epp,et al.  Combination of masking releases for different center frequencies and masker amplitude statistics. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Mounya Elhilali,et al.  Competing Streams at the Cocktail Party: Exploring the Mechanisms of Attention and Temporal Integration , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[22]  Ray Meddis,et al.  Physiological Correlates of Comodulation Masking Release in the Mammalian Ventral Cochlear Nucleus , 2001, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[23]  Blake S. Wilson,et al.  Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future , 2008, Hearing Research.

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

[25]  S. Rice Mathematical analysis of random noise , 1944 .

[26]  A. Oxenham Pitch Perception and Auditory Stream Segregation: Implications for Hearing Loss and Cochlear Implants , 2008, Trends in amplification.

[27]  Soha N. Garadat,et al.  Relationship between gap detection thresholds and loudness in cochlear-implant users , 2011, Hearing Research.

[28]  Michael K. Qin,et al.  Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  M. Dorman,et al.  A Sensitive Period for the Development of the Central Auditory System in Children with Cochlear Implants: Implications for Age of Implantation , 2002, Ear and hearing.

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

[31]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Side effects of fast-acting dynamic range compression that affect intelligibility in a competing speech task. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  M P Haggard,et al.  Spectro-temporal analysis in normal-hearing and cochlear-impaired listeners. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[34]  J H Grose,et al.  Cochlear hearing loss and the processing of modulation: effects of temporal asynchrony. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  B. Moore An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing , 1977 .

[36]  Bastian Epp,et al.  Superposition of masking releases , 2008, Journal of Computational Neuroscience.

[37]  Antje Ihlefeld,et al.  Comodulation masking release in speech identification with real and simulated cochlear-implant hearing. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.