Neural Modulation Transmission Is a Marker for Speech Perception in Noise in Cochlear Implant Users

Objectives: Cochlear implants (CIs) restore functional hearing in persons with a severe hearing impairment. Despite being one of the most successful bionic prosthesis, performance with CI (in particular speech understanding in noise) varies considerably across its users. The ability of the auditory pathway to encode temporal envelope modulations (TEMs) and the effect of degenerative processes associated with hearing loss on TEM encoding is assumed to be one of the reasons underlying the large intersubject differences in CI performance. The objective of the present study was to investigate how TEM encoding of the stimulated neural ensembles of human CI recipients is related to speech perception in noise (SPIN). Design: We used electroencephalography as a noninvasive electrophysiological measure to assess TEM encoding in the auditory pathway of CI users by means of the 40-Hz electrically evoked auditory steady state response (EASSR). Nine CI users with a wide range of SPIN outcome were included in the present study. TEM encoding was assessed for each stimulation electrode of each subject and new metrics; the CI neural modulation transmission difference (CIMTD) and the CI neural modulation transmission index (CIMTI) were developed to quantify the amount of variability in TEM encoding across the stimulated neural ensembles of the CI electrode array. Results: EASSR patterns varied across the CI electrode array and subjects. We found a strong correlation (r = 0.89, p = 0.001) between the SPIN outcomes and the variability in EASSR amplitudes across the array as assessed with CIMTD/CIMTI. Conclusions: The results of the present study show that the 40-Hz EASSR can be used to objectively assess the neural encoding of TEMs in human CI recipients. Overall reduced or largely variable TEM encoding of the neural ensembles across the electrode array, as quantified with the CIMTD/CIMTI, is highly correlated with speech perception in noise outcome with a CI.

[1]  Zachary M. Smith,et al.  Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception , 2002, Nature.

[2]  Bryan E Pfingst.  Effects of electrode configuration on cochlear implant modulation detection thresholds. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  R. Burkard.  Human Auditory Evoked Potentials , 2010 .

[4]  Zachary M. Smith,et al.  Examining the Electro-Neural Interface of Cochlear Implant Users Using Psychophysics, CT Scans, and Speech Understanding , 2014, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[5]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Neural Oscillations Carry Speech Rhythm through to Comprehension , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[6]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Kalman Filter Based Estimation of Auditory Steady State Response Parameters , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[7]  Ning Zhou,et al.  Evaluating Multipulse Integration as a Neural-Health Correlate in Human Cochlear Implant Users: Effects of Stimulation Mode , 2018, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[8]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  Ian M. Winter,et al.  Diversity of characteristic frequency rate-intensity functions in guinea pig auditory nerve fibres , 1990, Hearing Research.

[10]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Source analysis of auditory steady-state responses in acoustic and electric hearing , 2017, NeuroImage.

[11]  H. Hotelling.  The Generalization of Student’s Ratio , 1931 .

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

[13]  Astrid van Wieringen,et al.  Template Subtraction to Remove CI Stimulation Artifacts in Auditory Steady-State Responses in CI Subjects , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[14]  Marc Moonen,et al.  Characterization of cochlear implant artifacts in electrically evoked auditory steady-state responses , 2017, Biomed. Signal Process. Control..

[15]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Across-site patterns of modulation detection in listeners with cochlear implants. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Terence W. Picton,et al.  Frequency specificity of 40-Hz auditory steady-state responses , 2003, Hearing Research.

[17]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Using Temporal Modulation Sensitivity to Select Stimulation Sites for Processor MAPs in Cochlear Implant Listeners , 2013, Audiology and Neurotology.

[18]  Ning Zhou,et al.  Importance of cochlear health for implant function , 2015, Hearing Research.

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

[20]  Ning Zhou,et al.  Characteristics of detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels as a function of pulse rate in human cochlear implant users , 2012, Hearing Research.

[21]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Electrically Evoked Auditory Steady State Responses in Cochlear Implant Users , 2010, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[22]  D. Regan.  Some characteristics of average steady-state and transient responses evoked by modulated light. , 1966, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[23]  Ning Zhou,et al.  Deactivating stimulation sites based on low-rate thresholds improves spectral ripple and speech reception thresholds in cochlear implant users. , 2017, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Effects of Stimulation Rate, Mode and Level on Modulation Detection by Cochlear Implant Users , 2005, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[25]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Spatiotemporal reconstruction of auditory steady-state responses to acoustic amplitude modulations: Potential sources beyond the auditory pathway , 2017, NeuroImage.

[26]  H. Jasper.  Report of the committee on methods of clinical examination in electroencephalography , 1958 .

[27]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Improved Electrically Evoked Auditory Steady-State Response Thresholds in Humans , 2012, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[28]  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.

[29]  Robert V Shannon,et al.  Open Set Speech Perception with Auditory Brainstem Implant? , 2005, The Laryngoscope.

[30]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Assessing temporal modulation sensitivity using electrically evoked auditory steady state responses , 2015, Hearing Research.

[31]  N. Viemeister,et al.  Temporal integration and multiple looks. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  Christian Lorenzi,et al.  A cross-linguistic study of speech modulation spectra. , 2017, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Speech onset enhancement improves intelligibility in adverse listening conditions for cochlear implant users , 2016, Hearing Research.

[34]  Astrid van Wieringen,et al.  LIST and LINT: Sentences and numbers for quantifying speech understanding in severely impaired listeners for Flanders and the Netherlands , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[35]  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.

[36]  Astrid van Wieringen,et al.  Binaural Interaction Effects of 30–50 Hz Auditory Steady State Responses , 2017, Ear and hearing.

[37]  M. J. Osberger,et al.  HiResolutionTM and Conventional Sound Processing in the HiResolutionTM Bionic Ear: Using Appropriate Outcome Measures to Assess Speech Recognition Ability , 2004, Audiology and Neurotology.

[38]  M. Scherg,et al.  Intracerebral Sources of Human Auditory Steady-State Responses , 2004, Brain Topography.

[39]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Probing the Electrode-Neuron Interface With Focused Cochlear Implant Stimulation , 2010 .

[40]  Claude Jolly,et al.  An overview of cochlear implant electrode array designs , 2017, Hearing Research.

[41]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[42]  M. Sachs,et al.  Rate versus level functions for auditory-nerve fibers in cats: tone-burst stimuli. , 1974, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  B. Pfingst,et al.  Assessing the Relationship Between the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential and Speech Recognition Abilities in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2017, Ear and hearing.

[44]  M B Sachs,et al.  Nonlinearities in auditory-nerve fiber responses to bandlimited noise. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[45]  Erik Edwards,et al.  Syllabic (∼2–5 Hz) and fluctuation (∼1–10 Hz) ranges in speech and auditory processing , 2013, Hearing Research.

[46]  T. Lenarz,et al.  Performance and Preference for ACE Stimulation Rates Obtained with Nucleus RP 8 and Freedom System , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[47]  T W Picton,et al.  Potentials evoked by the sinusoidal modulation of the amplitude or frequency of a tone. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[48]  Mahan Azadpour,et al.  Enhancing speech envelope by integrating hair-cell adaptation into cochlear implant processing , 2016, Hearing Research.

[49]  H J McDermott,et al.  Loudness perception with pulsatile electrical stimulation: the effect of interpulse intervals. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[50]  T. Picton,et al.  Human auditory steady-state responses: Respuestas auditivas de estado estable en humanos , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[51]  Astrid van Wieringen,et al.  Aging Affects Neural Synchronization to Speech-Related Acoustic Modulations , 2016, Front. Aging Neurosci..

[52]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Identifying Cochlear Implant Channels With Poor Electrode-Neuron Interfaces: Electrically Evoked Auditory Brain Stem Responses Measured With the Partial Tripolar Configuration , 2011, Ear and hearing.

[53]  B. Moore,et al.  Benefit of high-rate envelope cues in vocoder processing: effect of number of channels and spectral region. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[55]  Sharon G. Kujawa,et al.  Age-Related Primary Cochlear Neuronal Degeneration in Human Temporal Bones , 2011, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[56]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Assessing the Electrode-Neuron Interface with the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential, Electrode Position, and Behavioral Thresholds , 2016, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[57]  T. Houtgast,et al.  A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria , 1985 .

[58]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[59]  J. Nadol,et al.  Patterns of neural degeneration in the human cochlea and auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implantation. , 1997, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[60]  S. Makeig,et al.  A 40-Hz auditory potential recorded from the human scalp. , 1981, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[61]  Uwe Baumann,et al.  Evaluation of an artifact reduction strategy for electrically evoked auditory steady-state responses: Simulations and measurements , 2018, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[62]  Robert V Shannon,et al.  Effects of Stimulation Rate on Speech Recognition with Cochlear Implants , 2005, Audiology and Neurotology.

[63]  J. Nadol,et al.  Within-Subject Comparison of Word Recognition and Spiral Ganglion Cell Count in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2014, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[64]  Aniruddh D. Patel,et al.  Temporal modulations in speech and music , 2017, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[65]  J. Galvin,et al.  Influence of stimulation rate and loudness growth on modulation detection and intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users , 2009, Hearing Research.

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

[67]  John C Middlebrooks,et al.  Selective Electrical Stimulation of the Auditory Nerve Activates a Pathway Specialized for High Temporal Acuity , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[68]  Marc Moonen,et al.  Auditory steady-state responses in cochlear implant users: Effect of modulation frequency and stimulation artifacts , 2016, Hearing Research.

[69]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Sound Coding in Cochlear Implants: From electric pulses to hearing , 2015, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.

[70]  Bryan E. Pfingst,et al.  Across-Site Threshold Variation in Cochlear Implants: Relation to Speech Recognition , 2004, Audiology and Neurotology.

[71]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Across-site patterns of modulation detection: relation to speech recognition. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[72]  Ning Zhou,et al.  Effects of Site-Specific Level Adjustments on Speech Recognition With Cochlear Implants , 2014, Ear and hearing.

[73]  Ning Zhou,et al.  Relationship between multipulse integration and speech recognition with cochlear implants. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[74]  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.

[75]  Bryan E. Pfingst,et al.  Across-Site Variation in Detection Thresholds and Maximum Comfortable Loudness Levels for Cochlear Implants , 2004, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.