Literature DB >> 10890731

Effects of dynamic range and amplitude mapping on phoneme recognition in Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users.

Q J Fu1, R V Shannon.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the consequences for phoneme recognition of errors in setting threshold and loudness levels in cochlear implant listeners using a 4-channel continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) speech processor.
DESIGN: Three Nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners, who normally used the SPEAK speech processing strategy participated in this study. An experimental 4-channel CIS speech processor was implemented in each listener as follows. Speech signals were band-pass filtered into four broad frequency bands and the temporal envelope of the signal in each band was extracted by half-wave rectification and low-pass filtering. A power function was used to convert the extracted acoustic amplitudes to electric currents. The electric currents were dependent on the exponent of the mapping power function and the electrode dynamic range, which was determined by the minimum and maximum stimulation levels. In the baseline condition, the minimum and maximum stimulation levels were defined as the psychophysically measured threshold level (T-level) and maximum comfortable level (C-level). In the experimental conditions, the maximum stimulation levels were fixed at the C-level and the dynamic range (in dB) was changed by varying the minimum stimulation levels on all electrodes. This manipulation simulates the effect of an erroneous measurement of the T-level. Phoneme recognition was obtained as the dynamic range of electrodes was changed from 1 dB to 20 dB and as the exponent of the power-law amplitude mapping function was changed from 0.1 to 0.4.
RESULTS: For each mapping condition, the electric dynamic range had a significant, but weak effect on vowel and consonant recognition. For a strong compression (p = 0.1), best vowel and consonant scores were obtained with a large dynamic range (12 dB). When the exponent of the mapping function was changed to 0.2 and 0.4, the dynamic range producing the highest scores decreased to 6 dB and 3 dB, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Phoneme recognition with a 4-channel CIS strategy was only mildly affected by large changes in both electric threshold and loudness mapping. Errors in threshold by a factor of 2 (6 dB) and in the loudness mapping exponent by a factor of 2 were required to produce a significant decrease in performance. In these extreme conditions, the effect of the electric dynamic range on phoneme recognition could be due to two independent factors: abnormal loudness growth and a reduction in the number of discriminable intensity steps. The decrease in performance caused by a reduced electric dynamic range can be compensated by a more expansive power-law mapping function, as long as the number of discriminable intensity steps is moderately large (e.g., >8).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10890731     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200006000-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  10 in total

Review 1.  Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-06

2.  Indication for the need of flexible and frequency specific mapping functions in cochlear implant speech processors.

Authors:  Sebastian Hoth
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Predicting the speech reception threshold of cochlear implant listeners using an envelope-correlation based measure.

Authors:  Nima Yousefian; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Evaluation of adaptive dynamic range optimization in adverse listening conditions for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Hussnain Ali; Oldooz Hazrati; Emily A Tobey; John H L Hansen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 5.  Auditory implant research at the House Ear Institute 1989-2013.

Authors:  Robert V Shannon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Clinical Practice Patterns With Pediatric Loudness Perception Measures.

Authors:  Ashley N Flores; Samantha J Gustafson
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 1.636

7.  Magnetic stimulation allows focal activation of the mouse cochlea.

Authors:  Jae-Ik Lee; Richard Seist; Stephen McInturff; Daniel J Lee; M Christian Brown; Konstantina M Stankovic; Shelley Fried
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 8.713

8.  Comparisons between detection threshold and loudness perception for individual cochlear implant channels.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; Amberly D Nye
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Correlation between Speech Perception Outcomes after Cochlear Implantation and Postoperative Acoustic and Electric Hearing Thresholds.

Authors:  Ursina Rüegg; Adrian Dalbert; Dorothe Veraguth; Christof Röösli; Alexander Huber; Flurin Pfiffner
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-01-17       Impact factor: 4.241

10.  Polarity Sensitivity in Pediatric and Adult Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Kelly N Jahn; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.