Relationship among the physiologic channel interactions, spectral-ripple discrimination, and vowel identification in cochlear implant users.

The hypothesis of this study was that broader patterns of physiological channel interactions in the local region of the cochlea are associated with poorer spectral resolution in the same region. Electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) were measured for three to six probe electrodes per subject to examine the channel interactions in different regions across the electrode array. To evaluate spectral resolution at a confined location within the cochlea, spectral-ripple discrimination (SRD) was measured using narrowband ripple stimuli with the bandwidth spanning five electrodes: Two electrodes apical and basal to the ECAP probe electrode. The relationship between the physiological channel interactions, spectral resolution in the local cochlear region, and vowel identification was evaluated. Results showed that (1) there was within- and across-subject variability in the widths of ECAP channel interaction functions and in narrowband SRD performance, (2) significant correlations were found between the widths of the ECAP functions and narrowband SRD thresholds, and between mean bandwidths of ECAP functions averaged across multiple probe electrodes and broadband SRD performance across subjects, and (3) the global spectral resolution reflecting the entire electrode array, not the local region, predicts vowel identification.

[1]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[2]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Spectral and Temporal Measures in Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users: On the Mechanism of Electroacoustic Hearing Benefits , 2012, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[3]  R. Cowan,et al.  Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking , 2003, Hearing Research.

[4]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Objective Assessment of Spectral Ripple Discrimination in Cochlear Implant Listeners Using Cortical Evoked Responses to an Oddball Paradigm , 2014, PloS one.

[5]  Paul J. Abbas,et al.  The Dependence of Auditory Nerve Rate Adaptation on Electric Stimulus Parameters, Electrode Position, and Fiber Diameter: A Computer Model Study , 2010, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[6]  Paul J Abbas,et al.  Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  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.

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

[9]  G S Donaldson,et al.  Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Ning Zhou,et al.  Cochlear infrastructure for electrical hearing , 2011, Hearing Research.

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

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

[13]  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.

[14]  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.

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

[16]  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.

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

[18]  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.

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

[20]  G. Clark,et al.  Biomedical studies on temporal bones of the first multi-channel cochlear implant patient at the University of Melbourne , 2014, Cochlear implants international.

[21]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/heares , 2022 .

[22]  J. Fayad,et al.  Multichannel Cochlear Implants: Relation of Histopathology to Performance , 2006, The Laryngoscope.

[23]  Mahan Azadpour,et al.  A Psychophysical Method for Measuring Spatial Resolution in Cochlear Implants , 2012, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[24]  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.

[25]  R. Fisher 014: On the "Probable Error" of a Coefficient of Correlation Deduced from a Small Sample. , 1921 .

[26]  Paul J. Abbas,et al.  Channel Interaction in Cochlear Implant Users Evaluated Using the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential , 2004, Audiology and Neurotology.

[27]  Michael Tykocinski,et al.  Threshold, Comfortable Level and Impedance Changes as a Function of Electrode-Modiolar Distance , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[28]  Paul J Abbas,et al.  The relation between electrophysiologic channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implant recipients. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[30]  G. M. Clark,et al.  Cochlear pathology following chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: II deafened kittens , 1994, Hearing Research.

[31]  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.

[32]  J. Nadol,et al.  Is Word Recognition Correlated With the Number of Surviving Spiral Ganglion Cells and Electrode Insertion Depth in Human Subjects With Cochlear Implants? , 2005, The Laryngoscope.

[33]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear Implants: System Design, Integration, and Evaluation , 2008, IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering.

[34]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  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.

[36]  D. Klatt,et al.  Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  T. M. Nearey Static, dynamic, and relational properties in vowel perception. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  Richard Wright,et al.  The Hyperspace Effect: Phonetic Targets Are Hyperarticulated. , 1993 .

[39]  Michelle L Hughes,et al.  Psychophysical Versus Physiological Spatial Forward Masking and the Relation to Speech Perception in Cochlear Implants , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[40]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Spatial channel interactions in cochlear implants , 2011, Journal of neural engineering.

[41]  Robert V. Shannon,et al.  Holes in Hearing , 2002, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[42]  H J McDermott,et al.  The relationship between speech perception and electrode discrimination in cochlear implantees. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  Charles T. M. Choi,et al.  Modeling ECAP in Cochlear Implants Using the FEM and Equivalent Circuits , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics.

[44]  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.

[45]  Michelle L Hughes,et al.  Effect of Stimulus and Recording Parameters on Spatial Spread of Excitation and Masking Patterns Obtained With the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential in Cochlear Implants , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[46]  Marco Pelizzone,et al.  Electrical field interactions in different cochlear implant systems. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[47]  H. Lilliefors On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Normality with Mean and Variance Unknown , 1967 .