Mahan Azadpour1, Colette M McKay. 1. 1School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, United Kingdom; 2Department of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; and 3The Bionics Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Auditory brainstem implants (ABI) use the same processing strategy as was developed for cochlear implants (CI). However, the cochlear nucleus (CN), the stimulation site of ABIs, is anatomically and physiologically more complex than the auditory nerve and consists of neurons with differing roles in auditory processing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the hypotheses that ABI users are less able than CI users to access speech spectro-temporal information delivered by the existing strategies and that the sites stimulated by different locations of CI and ABI electrode arrays differ in encoding of temporal patterns in the stimulation. DESIGN: Six CI users and four ABI users of Nucleus implants with ACE processing strategy participated in this study. Closed-set perception of aCa syllables (16 consonants) and bVd words (11 vowels) was evaluated via experimental processing strategies that activated one, two, or four of the electrodes of the array in a CIS manner as well as subjects' clinical strategies. Three single-channel strategies presented the overall temporal envelope variations of the signal on a single-implant electrode located at the high-, medium-, and low-frequency regions of the array. Implantees' ability to discriminate within electrode temporal patterns of stimulation for phoneme perception and their ability to make use of spectral information presented by increased number of active electrodes were assessed in the single- and multiple-channel strategies, respectively. Overall percentages and information transmission of phonetic features were obtained for each experimental program. RESULTS: Phoneme perception performance of three ABI users was within the range of CI users in most of the experimental strategies and improved as the number of active electrodes increased. One ABI user performed close to chance with all the single and multiple electrode strategies. There was no significant difference between apical, basal, and middle CI electrodes in transmitting speech temporal information, except a trend that the voicing feature was the least transmitted by the basal electrode. A similar electrode-location pattern could be observed in most ABI subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of tested ABI subjects was small, their wide range of phoneme perception performance was consistent with previous reports of overall speech perception in ABI patients. The better-performing ABI user participants had access to speech temporal and spectral information that was comparable to that of average CI user. The poor-performing ABI user did not have access to within-channel speech temporal information and did not benefit from an increased number of spectral channels. The within-subject variability between different ABI electrodes was less than the variability across users in transmission of speech temporal information. The difference in the performance of ABI users could be related to the location of their electrode array on the CN, anatomy, and physiology of their CN or the damage to their auditory brainstem due to tumor or surgery.
OBJECTIVES: Auditory brainstem implants (ABI) use the same processing strategy as was developed for cochlear implants (CI). However, the cochlear nucleus (CN), the stimulation site of ABIs, is anatomically and physiologically more complex than the auditory nerve and consists of neurons with differing roles in auditory processing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the hypotheses that ABI users are less able than CI users to access speech spectro-temporal information delivered by the existing strategies and that the sites stimulated by different locations of CI and ABI electrode arrays differ in encoding of temporal patterns in the stimulation. DESIGN: Six CI users and four ABI users of Nucleus implants with ACE processing strategy participated in this study. Closed-set perception of aCa syllables (16 consonants) and bVd words (11 vowels) was evaluated via experimental processing strategies that activated one, two, or four of the electrodes of the array in a CIS manner as well as subjects' clinical strategies. Three single-channel strategies presented the overall temporal envelope variations of the signal on a single-implant electrode located at the high-, medium-, and low-frequency regions of the array. Implantees' ability to discriminate within electrode temporal patterns of stimulation for phoneme perception and their ability to make use of spectral information presented by increased number of active electrodes were assessed in the single- and multiple-channel strategies, respectively. Overall percentages and information transmission of phonetic features were obtained for each experimental program. RESULTS: Phoneme perception performance of three ABI users was within the range of CI users in most of the experimental strategies and improved as the number of active electrodes increased. One ABI user performed close to chance with all the single and multiple electrode strategies. There was no significant difference between apical, basal, and middle CI electrodes in transmitting speech temporal information, except a trend that the voicing feature was the least transmitted by the basal electrode. A similar electrode-location pattern could be observed in most ABI subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of tested ABI subjects was small, their wide range of phoneme perception performance was consistent with previous reports of overall speech perception in ABI patients. The better-performing ABI user participants had access to speech temporal and spectral information that was comparable to that of average CI user. The poor-performing ABI user did not have access to within-channel speech temporal information and did not benefit from an increased number of spectral channels. The within-subject variability between different ABI electrodes was less than the variability across users in transmission of speech temporal information. The difference in the performance of ABI users could be related to the location of their electrode array on the CN, anatomy, and physiology of their CN or the damage to their auditory brainstem due to tumor or surgery.