Top

Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology

Published in:

01-09-2007

Spectral-Ripple Resolution Correlates with Speech Reception in Noise in Cochlear Implant Users

Authors: Jong Ho Won, Ward R. Drennan, Jay T. Rubinstein

Published in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology | Issue 3/2007

Abstract

Speech perception ability in noise is one of the most practical measures of success with a cochlear implant; however, with experience, this ability can change dramatically over time, making it a less than ideal tool for comparing performance among different processing strategies. This study examined performance on a spectral discrimination task and compared it to speech perception in noise. An adaptive procedure was used to determine the spectral-ripple density that subjects could discriminate. A closed-set, forced-choice adaptive procedure was used to determine speech reception thresholds for words in two-talker babble and in speech-shaped, steady-state noise. Spectral-ripple thresholds (ripples/octave) were significantly correlated with speech reception thresholds (dB SNR) in noise for 29 cochlear implant users (r = −0.55, p = 0.002 in two-talker babble; r = −0.62, p = 0.0004 in steady-state noise), demonstrating that better spectral resolution was associated with better speech perception in noise. A significant correlation was also found between the spectral-ripple discrimination ability and word recognition in quiet (r = 0.50, p = 0.009). In addition, test–retest reliability for spectral-ripple discrimination was good, and no learning was observed. The present study demonstrates that the spectral-ripple discrimination test, which is time efficient and nonlinguistic, would be a useful tool to evaluate cochlear implant performance with different signal processing strategies.

Bilger RC, Nuetzel JM, Rabinowitz WM, Rzeczkowski C. Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J. Speech. Hear. Res. 27:32–48, 1984.PubMed

Byrne D, Dillon H, Tran K, Arlinger S, et al. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96:2108–2120, 1994.CrossRef

Donaldson GS, Nelson DA. Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107:1645–1658, 2000.PubMedCrossRef

Dorman MF, Loizou PC. Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 18:113–114, 1997.

Dorman MF, Loizou PC. 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. Ear Hear. 19:162–166, 1998.PubMedCrossRef

Dorman MF, Loizou PC, Fitzke J, Tu Z. The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6–20 channels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104:3583–3585, 1998.PubMedCrossRef

Drennan WR, Won JH, Dasika VK, Rubinstein JT. Effects of temporal fine-structure on the lateralization of speech and on speech understanding in noise. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2007.

Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110:1150–1163, 2001.PubMedCrossRef

Fu QJ, Shannon RV, Wang X. Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104:3586–3596, 1998.PubMedCrossRef

Fu QJ, Nogaki G. Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. J Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 6:19–27, 2005.PubMedCrossRef

Harris RW. Speech audiometry materials compact disk. Provo, UT, Brigham Young University, 1991.

Henry BA, McKay CM, McDermott HJ, Clark GM. The relationship between speech perception and electrode discrimination in cochlear implantees. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108:1269–1280, 2000.PubMedCrossRef

Henry BA, Turner CW. The resolution of complex spectral patterns in cochlear implant and normal hearing listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113:2861–2873, 2003.PubMedCrossRef

Henry BA, Turner CW, Behrens A. Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118:1111–1121, 2005.PubMedCrossRef

Hong RS, Turner CW. Pure-tone auditory stream segregation and speech perception in noise in cochlear implant recipients. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120:360–374, 2006.PubMedCrossRef

Leek M, Dorman M, Summerfield Q. Minimum spectral contrast for vowel identification by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 81:148–154, 1987.PubMedCrossRef

Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 49:467–477, 1971.PubMedCrossRef

Lilliefors H. On the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 62:399–402, 1967.CrossRef

Litvak L, Spahr T, Saoji A, Fridman G. Relationship between perception of spectral ripple and speech recognition in cochlear implant and vocoder listeners. 29th Annual MidWinter Research Meeting of the ARO. 85, 2006.

Loizou PC, Poroy O. Minimum spectral contrast needed for vowel identification by normal hearing and cochlear implant listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110:1619–1627, 2001.PubMedCrossRef

Nelson DA, Van Tassell DJ, Schroder AC, Soli S, Levine S. Electrode ranking of place pitch and speech recognition in electrical hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 98:1987–1999, 1995.PubMedCrossRef

Parikh G, Loizou PC. The influence of noise on vowel and consonant cues. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118:3874–3888, 2005.PubMedCrossRef

Peterson G, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J. Speech. Hear. Disord. 27:62–70, 1962.PubMed

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

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

Supin AY, Popov VV, Milekhina ON, Tarakanov MB. Frequency resolving power measured by rippled noise. Hear. Res. 78:31–40, 1994.PubMedCrossRef

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

Title: Spectral-Ripple Resolution Correlates with Speech Reception in Noise in Cochlear Implant Users
Authors: Jong Ho Won
Ward R. Drennan
Jay T. Rubinstein
Publication date: 01-09-2007
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology / Issue 3/2007
Print ISSN: 1525-3961
Electronic ISSN: 1438-7573
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-007-0085-8

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Spectral-Ripple Resolution Correlates with Speech Reception in Noise in Cochlear Implant Users

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2007

Erratum: Age-related Decline in Kv3.1b Expression in the Mouse Auditory Brainstem Correlates with Functional Deficits in the Medial Olivocochlear Efferent System

Effects of Temporal Fine Structure on the Lateralization of Speech and on Speech Understanding in Noise

Ion Channel Gene Expression in the Inner Ear

Cisplatin Cytotoxicity of Auditory Cells Requires Secretions of Proinflammatory Cytokines via Activation of ERK and NF-κB

Changes Across Time in Spike Rate and Spike Amplitude of Auditory Nerve Fibers Stimulated by Electric Pulse Trains

Neural and Behavioral Sensitivity to Interaural Time Differences Using Amplitude Modulated Tones with Mismatched Carrier Frequencies