Across-site patterns of modulation detection in listeners with cochlear implants.

In modern cochlear implants, much of the information required for recognition of important sounds is conveyed by temporal modulation of the charge per phase in interleaved trains of electrical pulses. In this study, modulation detection thresholds (MDTs) were used to assess listeners' abilities to detect sinusoidal modulation of charge per phase at each available stimulation site in their 22-electrode implants. Fourteen subjects were tested. MDTs were found to be highly variable across stimulation sites in most listeners. The across-site patterns of MDTs differed considerably from subject to subject. The subject-specific patterns of across-site variability of MDTs suggest that peripheral site-specific characteristics, such as electrode placement and the number and condition of surviving neurons, play a primary role in determining modulation sensitivity. Across-site patterns of detection thresholds (T levels), maximum comfortable loudness levels (C levels) and dynamic ranges (DRs) were not consistently correlated with across-site patterns of MDTs within subjects, indicating that the mechanisms underlying across-site variation in these measures differed from those underlying across-site variation in MDTs. MDTs sampled from multiple sites in a listener's electrode array might be useful for diagnosing across-subject differences in speech recognition with cochlear implants and for guiding strategies to improve the individual's perception.

[1]  Z. Mo,et al.  Firing features and potassium channel content of murine spiral ganglion neurons vary with cochlear location , 2002, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[2]  Blake S. Wilson,et al.  Engineering Design of Cochlear Implants , 2004 .

[3]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[5]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

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

[7]  Toshio Ishibashi,et al.  Factors Associated with Poor Outcome in Children with Acute Otitis Media , 2003, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[8]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  A. Bregman,et al.  Fusion of auditory components: Effects of the frequency of amplitude modulation , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  M Pelizzone,et al.  Low-pass filtering in amplitude modulation detection associated with vowel and consonant identification in subjects with cochlear implants. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  J. Lindsay,et al.  Profound deafness. Associated sensory and neural degeneration. , 1980, Archives of otolaryngology.

[12]  F. Zeng,et al.  Importance of tonal envelope cues in Chinese speech recognition. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Rainer Hartmann,et al.  Discharge patterns of cat primary auditory fibers with electrical stimulation of the cochlea , 1984, Hearing Research.

[14]  R. Shannon Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

[17]  Monita Chatterjee,et al.  Across- and Within-Channel Envelope Interactions in Cochlear Implant Listeners , 2004, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

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

[19]  B. Pfingst,et al.  Psychophysical Metrics and Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users , 2005, Audiology and Neurotology.

[20]  M M Merzenich,et al.  Coding Considerations in Design of Cochlear Prostheses , 1980, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[21]  G M Clark,et al.  Modulation detection interference in cochlear implant subjects. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  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.

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

[24]  Q. Fu Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users , 2002, Neuroreport.

[25]  Anastasios Sarampalis,et al.  Auditory stream segregation with cochlear implants: A preliminary report , 2006, Hearing Research.

[26]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Effects of carrier pulse rate and stimulation site on modulation detection by subjects with cochlear implants. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  John C Middlebrooks,et al.  Auditory cortical images of cochlear-implant stimuli: dependence on electrode configuration. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[28]  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.

[29]  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.

[30]  B. Pfingst,et al.  Across-species comparisons of psychophysical detection thresholds for electrical stimulation of the cochlea: II. Strength-duration functions for single, biphasic pulses , 1999, Hearing Research.

[31]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Features of stimulation affecting tonal-speech perception: implications for cochlear prostheses. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  R. Shannon,et al.  Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  J. Galvin,et al.  The Role of Spectral and Temporal Cues in Voice Gender Discrimination by Normal-Hearing Listeners and Cochlear Implant Users , 2004, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

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