Literature DB >> 15735937

Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing.

Qian-Jie Fu1, Geraldine Nogaki.   

Abstract

The latest-generation cochlear implant devices provide many deaf patients with good speech recognition in quiet listening conditions. However, speech recognition deteriorates rapidly as the level of background noise increases. Previous studies have shown that, for cochlear implant users, the absence of fine spectro-temporal cues may contribute to poorer performance in noise, especially when the noise is dynamic (e.g., competing speaker or modulated noise). Here we report on sentence recognition by cochlear implant users and by normal-hearing subjects listening to an acoustic simulation of a cochlear implant, in the presence of steady or square-wave modulated speech-shaped noise. Implant users were tested using their everyday, clinically assigned speech processors. In the acoustic simulation, normal-hearing listeners were tested for different degrees of spectral resolution (16, eight, or four channels) and spectral smearing (carrier filter slopes of -24 or -6 dB/octave). For modulated noise, normal-hearing listeners experienced significant release from masking when the original, unprocessed speech was presented (which preserved the spectro-temporal fine structure), while cochlear implant users experienced no release from masking. As the spectral resolution was reduced, normal-hearing listeners' release from masking gradually diminished. Release from masking was further reduced as the degree of spectral smearing increased. Interestingly, the mean speech recognition thresholds of implant users were very close to those of normal-hearing subjects listening to four-channel spectrally smeared noise-band speech. Also, the best cochlear implant listeners performed like normal-hearing subjects listening to eight- to 16-channel spectrally smeared noise-band speech. These findings suggest that implant users' susceptibility to noise may be caused by the reduced spectral resolution and the high degree of spectral smearing associated with channel interaction. Efforts to improve the effective number of spectral channels as well as reduce channel interactions may improve implant performance in noise, especially for temporally modulated noise.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15735937      PMCID: PMC2504636          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-004-5024-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1438-7573


  22 in total

1.  Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Peggy B Nelson; Su-Hyun Jin; Arlene Earley Carney; David A Nelson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Effects of noise and noise suppression on speech perception by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  I Hochberg; A Boothroyd; M Weiss; S Hellman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Peggy B Nelson; Su-Hyun Jin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception. I.

Authors:  M ter Keurs; J M Festen; R Plomp
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing.

Authors:  J M Festen; R Plomp
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Some effects of auditory grouping factors on modulation detection interference (MDI).

Authors:  J W Hall; J H Grose
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing.

Authors:  Q J Fu; R V Shannon; X Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Frequency discrimination of complex signals, frequency selectivity, and speech perception in hearing-impaired subjects.

Authors:  J W Horst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Speech perception using a two-formant 22-electrode cochlear prosthesis in quiet and in noise.

Authors:  R C Dowell; P M Seligman; P J Blamey; G M Clark
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  1987 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.494

10.  A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired.

Authors:  R Plomp
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1986-06
View more
  144 in total

1.  Influence of pitch, timbre and timing cues on melodic contour identification with a competing masker (L).

Authors:  Meimei Zhu; Bing Chen; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  A psychophysical method for measuring spatial resolution in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Mahan Azadpour; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-10-15

3.  Masking release and the contribution of obstruent consonants on speech recognition in noise by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ning Li; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 4.  Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.

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

Review 5.  Cued speech for enhancing speech perception and first language development of children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Jacqueline Leybaert; Carol J LaSasso
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-06

6.  Partial tripolar cochlear implant stimulation: Spread of excitation and forward masking in the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; Steven M Bierer; John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Perception of speech produced by native and nonnative talkers by listeners with normal hearing and listeners with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Caili Ji; John J Galvin; Yi-ping Chang; Anting Xu; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Factors Affecting Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients Implanted With a Perimodiolar Electrode Array Located in Scala Tympani.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Rosalie M Uchanski; Noël Y Dwyer; Timothy A Holden
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Reduction of the Harmonic Series Influences Musical Enjoyment With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  John S Nemer; Gavriel D Kohlberg; Dean M Mancuso; Brianna M Griffin; Michael V Certo; Stephanie Y Chen; Michael B Chun; Jaclyn B Spitzer; Anil K Lalwani
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  Simulating the effects of spread of electric excitation on musical tuning and melody identification with a cochlear implant.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Leonid M Litvak; Michael F Dorman; Ashley R Bohanan; Lakshmi N Mishra
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 2.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.