Top

Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Cochlear Implant | Research Article

The Temporal Fine Structure of Background Noise Determines the Benefit of Bimodal Hearing for Recognizing Speech

Authors: H. C. Stronks, J. J. Briaire, J. H. M. Frijns

Published in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology | Issue 6/2020

Abstract

Cochlear implant (CI) users have more difficulty understanding speech in temporally modulated noise than in steady-state (SS) noise. This is thought to be caused by the limited low-frequency information that CIs provide, as well as by the envelope coding in CIs that discards the temporal fine structure (TFS). Contralateral amplification with a hearing aid, referred to as bimodal hearing, can potentially provide CI users with TFS cues to complement the envelope cues provided by the CI signal. In this study, we investigated whether the use of a CI alone provides access to only envelope cues and whether acoustic amplification can provide additional access to TFS cues. To this end, we evaluated speech recognition in bimodal listeners, using SS noise and two amplitude-modulated noise types, namely babble noise and amplitude-modulated steady-state (AMSS) noise. We hypothesized that speech recognition in noise depends on the envelope of the noise, but not on its TFS when listening with a CI. Secondly, we hypothesized that the amount of benefit gained by the addition of a contralateral hearing aid depends on both the envelope and TFS of the noise. The two amplitude-modulated noise types decreased speech recognition more effectively than SS noise. Against expectations, however, we found that babble noise decreased speech recognition more effectively than AMSS noise in the CI-only condition. Therefore, we rejected our hypothesis that TFS is not available to CI users. In line with expectations, we found that the bimodal benefit was highest in babble noise. However, there was no significant difference between the bimodal benefit obtained in SS and AMSS noise. Our results suggest that a CI alone can provide TFS cues and that bimodal benefits in noise depend on TFS, but not on the envelope of the noise.

Advanced Bionics LLC (2009) HiRes Fidelity 120® sound processing - implementing active current steering for increased spectral resolution in Harmony® HiResolution® bionic ear users White paper

Advanced Bionics LLC (2016) Optimizing hearing for listeners with a ccochlear implant and contralateral hearing aid. Adaptive Phonak digital bimodal fitting formula. White paper

Armstrong M, Pegg P, James C, Blarney P (1997) Speech perception in noise with implant and hearing aid. Otol Neurotol 18:S140–S141

Arnoldner C, Riss D, Brunner M, Durisin M, Baumgartner W-D, Hamzavi GT, Jafar S (2007) Speech and music perception with the new fine structure speech coding strategy: preliminary results. Acta Otolaryngol 127:1298–1303

Avan P, Giraudet F, Büki B (2015) Importance of binaural hearing. Audiol Neurotol 20(suppl 1):3–6

Blamey P et al (2013) Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: An update with 2251 patients. Audiology and Neurotology 18:36–47

Boersma P, Van Heuven V (2001) Speak and unspeak with PRAAT. Glot Int 5:341–347

Byrne D, Dillon H, Tran K, Arlinger S, Wilbraham K, Cox R, Hagerman B, Hetu R, Kei J, Lui C, Kiessling J, Kotby MN, Nasser NHA, el Kholy WAH, Nakanishi Y, Oyer H, Powell R, Stephens D, Meredith R, Sirimanna T, Tavartkiladze G, Frolenkov GI, Westerman S, Ludvigsen C (1994) An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoustic Soc Am 96:2108–2120

Carroll J, Tiaden S, Zeng F-G (2011) Fundamental frequency is critical to speech perception in noise in combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoustic Soc Am 130:2054–2062

Chatterjee M (2003) Modulation masking in cochlear implant listeners: envelope versus tonotopic components. J Acoustic Soc Am 113:2042–2053

Chatterjee M, Oba SI (2004) Across- and within-channel envelope interactions in cochlear implant listeners. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 5:360–375

Ching T (2005) The evidence call for making binaural-bimodal fittings routine. Hearing J 58:32–41

Ching TYC, Incerti P, Hill M (2004) Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears. Ear Hear 25:9–21

Ching TYC, van Wanrooy E, Hill M, Dillon H (2005) Binaural redundancy and inter-aural time difference cues for patients wearing a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears. Int J Audiol 44:513–521

Choi SJ, Lee JB, Bahng J, Lee WK, Park CH, Kim H-J, Lee JH (2016) Effect of low frequency on speech performance with bimodal hearing in bilateral severe hearing loss. Laryngoscope 126:2817–2822

Cuda D, Murri A, Mainardi A, Chalupper J (2019) Effectiveness and efficiency of a dedicated bimodal fitting formula. Audiol Res 9:219–219

Cullington HE, Zeng F-G (2010) Bimodal hearing benefit for speech recognition with competing voice in cochlear implant subject with normal hearing in contralateral ear. Ear Hear 31:70–73

De Jong MAM, Briaire JJ, Frijns JHM (2017) Take-home trial comparing fast Fourier transformation-based and filter bank-based cochlear implant speech coding strategies. Biomed Res Int 2017:7915042–7915042

De Jong MAM, Briaire JJ, van der Woude SFS, Frijns JHM (2019) Dynamic current focusing for loudness encoding in cochlear implants: a take-home trial. Int J Audiol 1–12

Dillon MT, Buss E, King ER, Deres EJ, Obarowski SN, Anderson ML, Adunka MC (2016) Comparison of two cochlear implant coding strategies on speech perception. Cochlear Implants Int 17:263–270

Dincer D’Alessandro H, Ballantyne D, Boyle PJ, De Seta E, DeVincentiis M, Mancini P (2018) Temporal fine structure processing, pitch, and speech perception in adult cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear 39:679–686

Donaldson GS, Dawson PK, Borden LZ (2011) Within-subjects comparison of the HiRes and Fidelity120 speech processing strategies: speech perception and its relation to place-pitch sensitivity. Ear Hear 32:238–250

Dorman MF, Gifford RH (2010) Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition. Int J Audiol 49:912–919

Dorman MF, Sheffield SW, Teece K, Olund AP, Gifford RH (2014) Availability of binaural cues for bilateral implant recipients and bimodal listeners with and without preserved hearing in the implanted ear. Audiol Neurootol 19:57–71

Drennan WR, Won JH, Nie K, Jameyson E, Rubinstein JT (2010) Sensitivity of psychophysical measures to signal processor modifications in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 262:1–8

Dreschler WA, Verschuure H, Ludvigsen C, Westermann S (2001) ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. Int Collegium Rehabil Audiol 40:148–157

Dunn CC, Tyler RS, Witt SA (2005) Benefit of wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear in adult users of a cochlear implant. J Speech Lang Hear Res 48:668–680

Firszt JB, Holden LK, Reeder RM, Skinner MW (2009) Speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of standard HiRes and HiRes 120 sound processing. Otol Neurotol 30:146–152

Francart T, van Wieringen A, Wouters J (2008a) APEX 3: a multi-purpose test platform for auditory psychophysical experiments. J Neurosci Methods 172:283–293

Francart T, Brokx J, Wouters J (2008b) Sensitivity to Interaural level difference and loudness growth with bilateral bimodal stimulation. Audiol Neurotol 13:309–319

Francart T, Brokx J, Wouters J (2009) Sensitivity to interaural time differences with combined cochlear implant and acoustic stimulation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 10:131–141

Fu Q-J, Nogaki G (2004) Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 6:19–27

Fu Q-J, Shannon RV, Wang X (1998) Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoustic Soc Am 104:3586–3596

Garretsen AJTM, Cremers CWRJ, Huygen PLM (1997) Hearing loss (in nonoperated ears) in relation to age in osteogenesis imperfecta type I. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 106:575–582

Gifford RH, Dorman MF, McKarns SA, Spahr AJ (2007) Combined electric and contralateral acoustic hearing: word and sentence recognition with bimodal hearing. J Speech Language Hearing Res 50:835–843

Gray L, Kesser B, Cole E (2009) Understanding speech in noise after correction of congenital unilateral aural atresia: effects of age in the emergence of binaural squelch but not in use of head-shadow. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 73:1281–1287

Green T, Faulkner A, Rosen S (2002) Spectral and temporal cues to pitch in noise-excited vocoder simulations of continuous-interleaved-sampling cochlear implants. J Acoustic Soc Am 112:2155–2164

Holube I (2011) Speech intelligibility in fluctuating maskers. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on auditory and audiological research, pp. 57–64

Hong RS, Turner CW (2009) Sequential stream segregation using temporal periodicity cues in cochlear implant recipients. J Acoust Soc Am 126:291–299

Hopkins K, Moore BCJ (2009) The contribution of temporal fine structure to the intelligibility of speech in steady and modulated noise. J Acoustic Soc Am 125:442–446

Kiefer J, Hohl S, Sturzebecher E, Pfennigdorff T, Gstoettner W (2001) Comparison of speech recognition with different speech coding strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and ACE) and their relationship to telemetric measures of compound action potentials in the nucleus CI 24M cochlear implant system. Audiology 40:32–42

Kokkinakis K, Pak N (2014) Binaural advantages in users of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant devices. J Acoustic Soc Am 135:EL47–EL53

Kong Y-Y, Stickney GS, Zeng F-G (2005) Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoustic Soc Am 117:1351–1361

Lee JY (2015) Aging and Speech Understanding. J Audiol Otol 19:7–13

Liu Y-W, Tao D-D, Chen B, Cheng X, Shu Y, Galvin JJI, Fu Q-J (2019) Factors affecting bimodal benefit in pediatric Mandarin-speaking Chinese cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 40:1316–1327

Lorenzi C, Gilbert G, Carn H, Garnier S, Moore BCJ (2006) Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:18866–18869

Lu Y, Cooke M (2008) Speech production modifications produced by competing talkers, babble, and stationary noise. J Acoustic Soc Am 124:3261–3275

Luts H, Jansen S, Dreschler W, Wouters J (2014) Development and normative data for the Flemish/Dutch Matrix test. Katholieke universiteit Leuven, Belgium and Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands Unpublished article

Magnusson L (2011) Comparison of the fine structure processing (FSP) strategy and the CIS strategy used in the MED-EL cochlear implant system: speech intelligibility and music sound quality. Int J Audiol 50:279–287

Marple L (1999) Computing the discrete-time “analytic” signal via FFT. IEEE Trans Signal Process 47:2600–2603

Mok M, Grayden D, Dowell RC, Lawrence D (2006) Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears. J Speech Language Hearing Res 49:338–351

Moore BCJ (2008) The role of temporal fine structure processing in pitch perception, masking, and speech perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired people. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 9:399–406

Morera C, Manrique M, Ramos A, Garcia-Ibanez L, Cavalle L, Huarte A, Castillo C, Estrada E (2005) Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study. Acta Otolaryngol 125:596–606

Müller J, Brill S, Hagen R, Moeltner A, Brockmeier SJ, Stark T, Helbig S, Maurer J, Zahnert T, Zierhofer C, Nopp P, Anderson I (2012) Clinical trial results with the MED-EL fine structure processing coding strategy in experienced cochlear implant users. ORL 74:185–198

Nelson PB, Jin S-H, Carney AE, Nelson DA (2003) Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoustic Soc Am 113:961–968

Nogueira W, Litvak L, Edler B, Ostermann J, Buchner A (2009a) Signal processing strategies for cochlear implants using current steering. EURASIP J Adv Signal Process 2009:3–3

Nogueira W, Litvak L, Edler B, Ostermann R, Büchner A (2009b) Signal processing strategies for cochlear implants using current steering. EURASIP J Adv Signal Process 2009:3–3

Oxenham AJ, Kreft HA (2014) Speech perception in tones and noise via cochlear implants reveals influence of spectral resolution on temporal processing. Trends Hearing 18:2331216514553783

Oxenham AJ, Simonson AM (2009) Masking release for low- and high-pass-filtered speech in the presence of noise and single-talker interference. J Acoustic Soc Am 125:457–468

Potts LG, Skinner MW, Litovsky RA, Strube MJ, Kuk F (2009) Recognition and Localization of Speech by Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients Wearing a Digital Hearing Aid in the Nonimplanted Ear (Bimodal Hearing). J Am Acad Audiol 20:353–373

Pyschny V, Landwehr M, Hahn M, Lang-Roth R, Walger M, Meister H (2014) Head shadow, squelch, and summation effects with an energetic or informational masker in bilateral and bimodal CI users. J Speech Lang Hear Res 57:1942–1960

Qi B, Krenmayr A, Zhang N, Dong R, Chen X, Schatzer R, Zierhofer C, Liu B, Han D (2012) Effects of temporal fine structure stimulation on mandarin speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Acta Otolaryngol 132:1183–1191

Qin MK, Oxenham AJ (2003) Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J Acoustic Soc Am 114:446–454

Riss D, Arnoldner C, Reiß S, Baumgartner W-D, Hamzavi J-S (2009) 1-year results using the opus speech processor with the fine structure speech coding strategy. Acta Otolaryngol 129:988–991

Rosen S, Carlyon RP, Darwin CJ, Russell IJ (1992) Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 336:367–373

Rubinstein JT, Turner C (2003) A novel acoustic simulation of cochlear implant hearing: effects of temporal fine structure. In: First international IEEE EMBS conference on neural engineering, 2003. Conference Proceedings., pp 142-145

Schatzer R, Koroleva I, Griessner A, Levin S, Kusovkov V, Yanov Y, Zierhofer C (2015) Speech perception with interaction-compensated simultaneous stimulation and long pulse durations in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 322:99–106

Shannon RV, Zeng F-G, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M (1995) Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270:303–304

Skinner MW, Clark GM, Whitford LA, Seligman PM, Staller SJ, Shipp DB, Shallop JK, Everingham C, Menapace CM, Arndt PL, Antogenelli T, Brimacombe JA, Pijl S, Daniels P, George CR, McDermott HJ, Beiter AL (1994) Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant system. Otol Neurotol 15:15–27

Skinner MW, Holden LK, Whitford LA, Plant KL, Psarros C, Holden TA (2002) Speech recognition with the nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults. Ear Hear 23:207–223

Soede W, Bilsen FA, Berkhout AJ (1993) Assessment of a directional microphone array for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoustic Soc Am 94:799–808

Stickney GS, Zeng F-G, Litovsky R, Assmann P (2004) Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. J Acoustic Soc Am 116:1081–1091

Swaminathan J, Mason CR, Streeter TM, Best V, Roverud E, Kidd G (2016) Role of binaural temporal fine structure and envelope cues in cocktail-party listening. J Neurosci 36:8250–8257

Turner CW, Gantz BJ, Vidal C, Behrens A, Henry BA (2004) Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing. J Acoustic Soc Am 115:1729–1735

Tyler RS, Parkinson AJ, Wilson BS, Witt S, Preece JP, Noble W (2002) Patients utilizing a hearing aid and a cochlear implant: speech perception and localization. Ear Hear 23:98–105

Van der Beek FB, Soede W, Frijns JHM (2007) Evaluation of the benefit for cochlear Implantees of two assistive directional microphone systems in an artificial diffuse noise situation. Ear Hear 28:99–110

Vermeire K, Punte AK, Van de Heyning P (2010) Better speech recognition in noise with the fine structure processing coding strategy. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 72:305–311

Wilson BS (2019) The remarkable cochlear implant and possibilities for the next large step forward. Acoustics Today 15:53–61

Wilson BS, Dorman MF (2008) Cochlear implants: current designs and future possibilities. J Rehabil Res Dev 45:695–730

Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, Wolford RD, Zerbi M (1993) Design and evaluation of a continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) processing strategy for multichannel cochlear implants. J Rehabil Res Dev 30:110–116

World Medical Association (2013) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310:2191–2194

Wouters J, McDermott HJ, Francart T (2015) Sound coding in cochlear implants: from electric pulses to hearing. IEEE Signal Process Mag 32:67–80

Zeng F-G, Nie K, Stickney GS, Kong Y-Y, Vongphoe M, Bhargave A, Wei C, Cao K (2005) Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:2293–2298

Title: The Temporal Fine Structure of Background Noise Determines the Benefit of Bimodal Hearing for Recognizing Speech
Authors: H. C. Stronks
J. J. Briaire
J. H. M. Frijns
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: Springer US
Keyword: Cochlear Implant
Published in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology / Issue 6/2020
Print ISSN: 1525-3961
Electronic ISSN: 1438-7573
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-020-00772-1

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

The Temporal Fine Structure of Background Noise Determines the Benefit of Bimodal Hearing for Recognizing Speech

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2020

Effect of the Relative Timing between Same-Polarity Pulses on Thresholds and Loudness in Cochlear Implant Users

Gap Detection Deficits in Chinchillas with Selective Carboplatin-Induced Inner Hair Cell Loss

The Effect of Phantom Stimulation and Pseudomonophasic Pulse Shapes on Pitch Perception by Cochlear Implant Listeners

Perceptual Weighting of Binaural Lateralization Cues across Frequency Bands

Does the “Reticular Lamina Nonlinearity” Contribute to the Basal DPOAE Source?