Top

Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology

Published in:

01-09-2005

Effects of Stimulation Rate, Mode and Level on Modulation Detection by Cochlear Implant Users

Authors: John J. Galvin III, Qian-Jie Fu

Published in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology | Issue 3/2005

Abstract

In cochlear implant (CI) patients, temporal processing is often poorest at low listening levels, making perception difficult for low-amplitude temporal cues that are important for consonant recognition and/or speech perception in noise. It remains unclear how speech processor parameters such as stimulation rate and stimulation mode may affect temporal processing, especially at low listening levels. The present study investigated the effects of these parameters on modulation detection by six CI users. Modulation detection thresholds (MDTs) were measured as functions of stimulation rate, mode, and level. Results show that for all stimulation rate and mode conditions, modulation sensitivity was poorest at quiet listening levels, consistent with results from previous studies. MDTs were better with the lower stimulation rate, especially for quiet-to-medium listening levels. Stimulation mode had no significant effect on MDTs. These results suggest that, although high stimulation rates may better encode temporal information and widen the electrode dynamic range, CI patients may not be able to access these enhanced temporal cues, especially at the lower portions of the dynamic range. Lower stimulation rates may provide better recognition of weak acoustic envelope information.

Bacon SP, Viemeister NF. Temporal modulation transfer functions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Audiology 24:117–134, 1985.PubMedCrossRef

Blamey PJ, Pyman BC, Gordon M, Clark GM, Brown AM, Dowell RC, Hollow RD. Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 101:342–348, 1992.PubMed

Brill SM, GstÖttner W, Helms J, Ilberg CV, Baumgartner W, MÜller J, Kiefer J. Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+. Am. J. Otol. 18:S104–S106, 1997.PubMed

Brill SM, Hochmair I, Hochmair ES. The importance of stimulation rate in pulsatile stimulation strategies in cochlear implants. Presented at the XXIV International Congress of Audiology, Buenos Aires, 1998a.

Brill SM, Schatzer R, Nopp P, Hochmair I, Hochmair ES. JCIS: CIS with temporally jittering stimulation pulses: effect of jittering amplitude and stimulation rate on speech understanding. Presented at the 4th European Symposium on Paediatric Cochlear Implantation, Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands, 1998b.

Burns EM, Viemeister NF. Played-again SAM: further observations on the pitch of amplitude-modulated noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 70:1655–1660, 1981.CrossRef

Cazals Y, Pelizzone M, Kasper A, Montandon P. Indication of a relation between speech perception and temporal resolution for cochlear implantees. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 100:893–895, 1991.PubMed

Cazals Y, Pelizzone M, Saudan O, Boex C. Low-pass filtering in amplitude modulation detection associated with vowel and consonant identification in subjects with cochlear implants. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 96:2048–2054, 1994.PubMedCrossRef

Chatterjee M. Modulation masking in cochlear implant listeners: envelope versus non seq. tonotopic components. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113:2042–2053, 2003.PubMedCrossRef

Chatterjee M, Oba SI. Across- and within-channel envelope interactions in cochlear implant listeners. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 5:360–375, 2005.

Donaldson GS, Viemeister NF. Intensity discrimination and detection of amplitude modulation in electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108:760–763, 2000.PubMedCrossRef

Drullman R, Festern JM, Plomp R. Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95:1053–1064, 1994a.PubMedCrossRef

Drullman R, Festern JM, Plomp R. Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95:2670–2680, 1994b.PubMedCrossRef

Formby C. Modulation detection by patients with eighth-nerve tumors. J. Speech Hear. Res. 29:413–419, 1986.PubMed

Forrest TG, Green DM. Detection of partially filled gaps in noise and the temporal modulation transfer function. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82:1933–1943, 1987.PubMedCrossRef

Franck KH, Xu L, Pfingst BE. Effects of stimulus level on speech perception with cochlear prostheses. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 4:49–59, 2003.PubMedCrossRef

Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Cruz RJ. Effects of stimulation rate on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Audiol. Neuro-otol. 10:169–184, 2005.CrossRef

Fu QJ. Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. NeuroReport 13:1635–1640, 2002.PubMedCrossRef

Fu QJ, Shannon RV. Effects of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition in cochlear implant users. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107:589–597, 2000.PubMedCrossRef

Fu QJ, Zeng FG. Effects of envelope cues on Mandarin Chinese tone recognition. Asia-Pac. J. Speech Lang. Hear. 5:45–57, 2000.

Fu QJ, Zeng FG, Shannon RV, Soli SD. Importance of tonal envelope cues in Chinese speech recognition. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104:505–510, 1998.PubMedCrossRef

Fu QJ, Chinchilla S, Galvin JJ. The role of spectral and temporal cues in voice gender discrimination by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 254-260, 2004.

Holden LK, Skinner MW, Holden TA, Demorest ME. Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. Ear Hear. 23:463–476, 2002.PubMedCrossRef

Jesteadt W. An adaptive procedure for subjective judgments. Percept. Psychophys. 28:85–88, 1980.PubMed

Kreft HA, Donaldson GS, Nelson DA. Effects of pulse rate and electrode array design on intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116:2258–2268, 2004.PubMedCrossRef

Lawson DT, Wilson BS, Zerbi M, Finley CC. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Third Quarterly Progress Report, NIH Contract N01-DC-5-2103, 1996.

Litvak L, Delgutte B, Eddington D. Auditory nerve fiber responses to electric stimulation: modulated and unmodulated pulse trains. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110:368–379, 2001.PubMedCrossRef

Loizou PC, Poroy O, Dorman MF. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108:790–802, 2000.PubMedCrossRef

Middlebrooks JC. Effects of cochlear-implant pulse rate and inter-channel timing on channel interactions and thresholds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116:452–468, 2004.PubMedCrossRef

Middlebrooks JC. Transmission of temporal information from a cochlear implant to the auditory cortex. Abstracts of Association for Research in Otolaryngology 28th Midwinter Meeting, February 2005, Volume 28, 91, 2005.

Morris DJ, Pfingst BE. Effects of electrode configuration and stimulus level on rate and level discrimination with cochlear implants. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 1:211–223, 2000.CrossRef

Muchnik C, Taitelbaum R, Tene S, Hildesheimer M. Auditory temporal resolution and open speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients. Scand. Audiol. 23:105–109, 1993.

Rubinstein JT, Wilson BS, Finley CC, Abbas PJ. Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hear. Res. 127:108–118, 1999.PubMedCrossRef

Shannon RV. Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91:2156–2164, 1992.PubMedCrossRef

Shannon RV, Colletti V. Evidence from auditory brainstem implants of a modulation-specific auditory pathway that is critical for speech recognition. Abstracts of Association for Research in Otolaryngology 28th Midwinter Meeting, February 2005, Volume 28, 183, 2005.

Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Wygonski J, Kamath V, Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270:303–304, 1995.PubMedCrossRef

Skinner MW. Optimizing cochlear implant speech performance. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl. 191:4–13, 2003.PubMed

Turner CW, Souza PE, Forget LN. Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97:2568–2576, 1995.PubMedCrossRef

van Tasell DJ, Soli SD, Kirby VM, Widin GP. Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82:1152–1161, 1987.PubMedCrossRef

van Tasell DJ, Greenfield DG, Logemann JJ, Nelson DA. Temporal cues for consonant recognition: training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 92:1247–1257, 1992.CrossRef

Vandali AE, Whitford LA, Plant KL, Clark GM. Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear. 21:608-624, 2000.PubMedCrossRef

Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson D, Zerbi M. Temporal representations with cochlear implants. Am. J. Otol. 18:S30–S34, 1997a.PubMed

Wilson B, Finley C, Zerbi M, Lawson D, van den Honert C. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. NIH Project N01-DC-5-2103, Seventh Quarterly Progress Report, Neural Prosthesis Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 1997b.

Wojtczak M, Viemeister NF. Intensity discrimination and detection of amplitude modulation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106:1917–1924, 1999.PubMedCrossRef

Wygonski J, Robert M. HEI Nucleus Research Interface (HEINRI) Specification. Internal Materials, 2002.

Xu L, Tsai Y, Pfingst BE. Features of stimulation affecting tonal-speech perception: implications for cochlear prostheses. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 112:247–258, 2002.PubMedCrossRef

Zeng FG, Turner CW. Binaural loudness matches in unilaterally impaired listeners. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 43:565–583, 1991.

Title: Effects of Stimulation Rate, Mode and Level on Modulation Detection by Cochlear Implant Users
Authors: John J. Galvin III
Qian-Jie Fu
Publication date: 01-09-2005
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology / Issue 3/2005
Print ISSN: 1525-3961
Electronic ISSN: 1438-7573
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-005-0007-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Effects of Stimulation Rate, Mode and Level on Modulation Detection by Cochlear Implant Users

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2005

Contralateral Effects and Binaural Interactions in Dorsal Cochlear Nucleus

Effects of Age, Age-Related Hearing Loss, and Contralateral Cafeteria Noise on the Discrimination of Small Frequency Changes: Psychoacoustic and Electrophysiological Measures

Sensitivity to Interaural Correlation of Single Neurons in the Inferior Colliculusof Guinea Pigs

Thickness Distribution of Fresh Eardrums of Cat Obtained with Confocal Microscopy

Orientation of Human Semicircular Canals Measured by Three-Dimensional Multiplanar CT Reconstruction

NF-κB is Required for Survival of Immature Auditory Hair Cells In Vitro