Hearing in Noise: The Importance of Coding Strategies—Normal-Hearing Subjects and Cochlear Implant Users

Two schemes are mainly used for coding sounds in cochlear implants: Fixed-Channel and Channel-Picking. This study aims to determine the speech audiometry scores in noise of people using either type of sound coding scheme. Twenty normal-hearing and 45 cochlear implant subjects participated in this experiment. Both populations were tested by using dissyllabic words mixed with cocktail-party noise. A cochlear implant simulator was used to test the normal-hearing subjects. This simulator separated the sound into 20 spectral channels and the eight most energetic were selected to simulate the Channel-Picking strategy. For normal-hearing subjects, we noticed higher scores with the Fixed-Channel strategy than with the Channel-Picking strategy in the mid-range signal-to-noise ratios (0 to +6 dB). For cochlear implant users, no differences were found between the two coding schemes but we could see a slight advantage for the Fixed-Channel strategies over the Channel-Picking strategies. For both populations, a difference was observed for the signal-to-noise ratios at 50% of the maximum recognition plateau in favour of the Fixed-Channel strategy. To conclude, in the most common signal-to-noise ratio conditions, a Fixed-Channel coding strategy may lead to better recognition percentages than a Channel-Picking strategy. Further studies are indicated to confirm this.

[1]  Ahmed Ben Hamida,et al.  Influence of a shift in frequency distribution and analysis rate on phoneme intelligibility in noisy environments for simulated bilateral cochlear implants , 2013 .

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

[3]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  The number of spectral channels required for speech recognition depends on the difficulty of the listening situation. , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[4]  Michael F Dorman,et al.  A comparison of the speech understanding provided by acoustic models of fixed-channel and channel-picking signal processors for cochlear implants. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[5]  Effects of Stimulation Rate With the FS4 and HDCIS Coding Strategies in Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2016, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[6]  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.

[7]  Uwe Baumann,et al.  Comparison of Musical Activities of Cochlear Implant Users with Different Speech-Coding Strategies , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[8]  William J. Idsardi,et al.  The use of auditory and visual context in speech perception by listeners with normal hearing and listeners with cochlear implants , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[9]  Blake S. Wilson,et al.  Representation of fine structure or fine frequency information with cochlear implants , 2004 .

[10]  Richard A Armstrong,et al.  When to use the Bonferroni correction , 2014, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[11]  W Baumgartner,et al.  Speech understanding in quiet and in noise with the CIS speech coding strategy (MED-EL Combi-40) compared to the multipeak and spectral peak strategies (nucleus). , 1996, ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties.

[12]  H. Traunmüller.  Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale , 1990 .

[13]  M F Dorman,et al.  The Identification of Speech in Noise by Cochlear Implant Patients and Normal‐Hearing Listeners Using 6‐Channel Signal Processors , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Erika Skoe,et al.  Subcortical Laterality of Speech Encoding , 2008, Audiology and Neurotology.

[15]  Yi Hu,et al.  A new sound coding strategy for suppressing noise in cochlear implants. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Christian Berger-Vachon,et al.  Influence of coding strategies in electric-acoustic hearing: A simulation dedicated to EAS cochlear implant, in the presence of noise , 2014 .

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

[18]  E. Domico,et al.  Speech Recognition in Background Noise of Cochlear Implant Patients , 2002, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[19]  Richard Ramsden,et al.  Speech Understanding in Noise with a Med-El COMBI 40+ Cochlear Implant Using Reduced Channel Sets , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[20]  Marc Moonen,et al.  Understanding the effect of noise on electrical stimulation sequences in cochlear implants and its impact on speech intelligibility , 2013, Hearing Research.

[21]  William M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1991, Nature.

[22]  M F Dorman,et al.  The Identification of Consonants and Vowels by Cochlear Implant Patients Using a 6‐Channel Continuous Interleaved Sampling Processor and by Normal‐Hearing Subjects Using Simulations of Processors with Two to Nine Channels , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[23]  C. A. Verschuur.  Effect of stimulation rate on speech perception in adult users of the Med-El CIS speech processing strategy Efectos de la tasa de estimulación en la percepción del lenguaje en usuarios adultos de la estrategia de procesamiento Med-El CIS , 2005, International journal of audiology.

[24]  Colleen Psarros,et al.  Speech Recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS Speech Coding Strategies in Newly Implanted Adults , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[25]  R. Zatorre,et al.  Structure and function of auditory cortex: music and speech , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  Gail M. Sullivan,et al.  Using Effect Size-or Why the P Value Is Not Enough. , 2012, Journal of graduate medical education.

[27]  D. Streiner,et al.  Correction for multiple testing: is there a resolution? , 2011, Chest.

[28]  Dan Gnansia,et al.  Chapter 16 – Contribution of Noise Reduction Algorithms: Perception Versus Localization Simulation in the Case of Binaural Cochlear Implant (BCI) Coding , 2015 .

[29]  Mario A. Svirsky,et al.  Information theoretic evaluation of a noiseband-based cochlear implant simulator , 2016, Hearing Research.

[30]  M F Dorman,et al.  Recognition of Sentences in Noise by Normal-Hearing Listeners Using Simulations of Speak-Type Cochlear Implant Signal Processors , 2000, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

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

[32]  P C Loizou,et al.  On the number of channels needed to understand speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  M F Dorman,et al.  Recognition of Monosyllabic Words by Cochlear Implant Patients and by Normal-Hearing Subjects Listening to Words Processed through Cochlear Implant Signal Processing Strategies , 2000, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[34]  Mondher Frikha,et al.  Dual-channel spectral subtraction algorithms based speech enhancement dedicated to a bilateral cochlear implant , 2012 .

[35]  Susanto Rahardja,et al.  Piecewise-Linear Frequency Shifting Algorithm for Frequency Resolution Enhancement in Digital Hearing Aids , 2017 .