Validation of a Clinical Assessment of Spectral-Ripple Resolution for Cochlear Implant Users

Objectives: Nonspeech psychophysical tests of spectral resolution, such as the spectral-ripple discrimination task, have been shown to correlate with speech-recognition performance in cochlear implant (CI) users. However, these tests are best suited for use in the research laboratory setting and are impractical for clinical use. A test of spectral resolution that is quicker and could more easily be implemented in the clinical setting has been developed. The objectives of this study were (1) To determine whether this new clinical ripple test would yield individual results equivalent to the longer, adaptive version of the ripple-discrimination test; (2) To evaluate test–retest reliability for the clinical ripple measure; and (3) To examine the relationship between clinical ripple performance and monosyllabic word recognition in quiet for a group of CI listeners. Design: Twenty-eight CI recipients participated in the study. Each subject was tested on both the adaptive and the clinical versions of spectral ripple discrimination, as well as consonant–nucleus–consonant word recognition in quiet. The adaptive version of spectral ripple used a two-up, one-down procedure for determining spectral ripple discrimination threshold. The clinical ripple test used a method of constant stimuli, with trials for each of 12 fixed ripple densities occurring six times in random order. Results from the clinical ripple test (proportion correct) were then compared with ripple-discrimination thresholds (in ripples per octave) from the adaptive test. Results: The clinical ripple test showed strong concurrent validity, evidenced by a good correlation between clinical ripple and adaptive ripple results (r = 0.79), as well as a correlation with word recognition (r = 0.7). Excellent test–retest reliability was also demonstrated with a high test–retest correlation (r = 0.9). Conclusions: The clinical ripple test is a reliable nonlinguistic measure of spectral resolution, optimized for use with CI users in a clinical setting. The test might be useful as a diagnostic tool or as a possible surrogate outcome measure for evaluating treatment effects in hearing.

[1]  Heather A. Kreft,et al.  Comparing spatial tuning curves, spectral ripple resolution, and speech perception in cochlear implant users. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Sensitivity of psychophysical measures to signal processor modifications in cochlear implant users , 2010, Hearing Research.

[3]  D. DeMets,et al.  Surrogate End Points in Clinical Trials: Are We Being Misled? , 1996, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  C S Watson,et al.  Individual differences in the processing of speech and nonspeech sounds by normal-hearing listeners. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Spectral-Ripple Resolution Correlates with Speech Reception in Noise in Cochlear Implant Users , 2007, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[6]  Belinda A Henry,et al.  Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Lucas H M Mens,et al.  Current Steering and Current Focusing in Cochlear Implants: Comparison of Monopolar, Tripolar, and Virtual Channel Electrode Configurations , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[8]  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.

[9]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Evidence of across-channel processing for spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant listeners. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Assessing the role of spectral and intensity cues in spectral ripple detection and discrimination in cochlear-implant users. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Charles S. Watson,et al.  Performance of 146 normal adult listeners on a battery of auditory discrimination tests , 1982 .

[12]  Benoit M. Dawant,et al.  Image-Guidance Enables New Methods for Customizing Cochlear Implant Stimulation Strategies , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[13]  H. Dillon,et al.  An international comparison of long‐term average speech spectra , 1994 .

[14]  Jay T Rubinstein,et al.  Music perception in cochlear implant users and its relationship with psychophysical capabilities. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[15]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. , 1962, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[16]  D M Green,et al.  Detection of simple and complex changes of spectral shape. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Anthony J Spahr,et al.  Relationship between perception of spectral ripple and speech recognition in cochlear implant and vocoder listeners. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Olga N. Milekhina,et al.  Frequency resolving power measured by rippled noise , 1994, Hearing Research.

[19]  T. Fleming,et al.  Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  Anthony Spahr,et al.  Spectral cues for understanding speech in quiet and in noise , 2011, Cochlear implants international.

[21]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Relationship Between Behavioral and Physiological Spectral-Ripple Discrimination , 2011, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[22]  Gail S Donaldson,et al.  Within-Subjects Comparison of the HiRes and Fidelity120 Speech Processing Strategies: Speech Perception and Its Relation to Place-Pitch Sensitivity , 2011, Ear and hearing.

[23]  David A Eddins,et al.  Spectral modulation detection as a function of modulation frequency, carrier bandwidth, and carrier frequency region. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Charles S. Watson,et al.  An auditory discrimination test battery , 1982 .

[25]  J. Rubinstein,et al.  Psychoacoustic Abilities Associated With Music Perception in Cochlear Implant Users , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[26]  Belinda A Henry,et al.  The resolution of complex spectral patterns by cochlear implant and normal-hearing listeners. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Relationship between channel interaction and spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant users. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  René H. Gifford,et al.  Speech Recognition Materials and Ceiling Effects: Considerations for Cochlear Implant Programs , 2008, Audiology and Neurotology.

[29]  Ting Zhang,et al.  Relationship Between Auditory Function of Nonimplanted Ears and Bimodal Benefit , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[30]  Kaibao Nie,et al.  Measuring Sound Detection and Reaction Time in Infant and Toddler Cochlear Implant Recipients Using an Observer-Based Procedure: A First Report , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[31]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Can Unaided Non-Linguistic Measures Predict Cochlear Implant Candidacy? , 2014, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[32]  Anthony J Spahr,et al.  Spectral modulation detection and vowel and consonant identifications in cochlear implant listeners. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Psychoacoustic Performance and Music and Speech Perception in Prelingually Deafened Children with Cochlear Implants , 2012, Audiology and Neurotology.