Literature DB >> 32320925

The effect of a coding strategy that removes temporally masked pulses on speech perception by cochlear implant users.

Wiebke Lamping1, Tobias Goehring2, Jeremy Marozeau3, Robert P Carlyon2.   

Abstract

Speech recognition in noisy environments remains a challenge for cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Unwanted charge interactions between current pulses, both within and between electrode channels, are likely to impair performance. Here we investigate the effect of reducing the number of current pulses on speech perception. This was achieved by implementing a psychoacoustic temporal-masking model where current pulses in each channel were passed through a temporal integrator to identify and remove pulses that were less likely to be perceived by the recipient. The decision criterion of the temporal integrator was varied to control the percentage of pulses removed in each condition. In experiment 1, speech in quiet was processed with a standard Continuous Interleaved Sampling (CIS) strategy and with 25, 50 and 75% of pulses removed. In experiment 2, performance was measured for speech in noise with the CIS reference and with 50 and 75% of pulses removed. Speech intelligibility in quiet revealed no significant difference between reference and test conditions. For speech in noise, results showed a significant improvement of 2.4 dB when removing 50% of pulses and performance was not significantly different between the reference and when 75% of pulses were removed. Further, by reducing the overall amount of current pulses by 25, 50, and 75% but accounting for the increase in charge necessary to compensate for the decrease in loudness, estimated average power savings of 21.15, 40.95, and 63.45%, respectively, could be possible for this set of listeners. In conclusion, removing temporally masked pulses may improve speech perception in noise and result in substantial power savings.
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear implant; Masking; Speech perception; Temporal integrator

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32320925      PMCID: PMC7116331          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2020.107969

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  68 in total

1.  Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Q J Fu; R V Shannon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Psychophysical recovery from single-pulse forward masking in electric hearing.

Authors:  D A Nelson; G S Donaldson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Cortical responses to cochlear implant stimulation: channel interactions.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-10-20

4.  Enhancement of temporal cues to pitch in cochlear implants: effects on pitch ranking.

Authors:  Andrew E Vandali; Richard J M van Hoesel
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant.

Authors:  H J McDermott; C M McKay; A E Vandali
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Loudness perception with pulsatile electrical stimulation: the effect of interpulse intervals.

Authors:  C M McKay; H J McDermott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Encoding speech in cochlear implants using simultaneous amplitude and rate modulation.

Authors:  Tim Brochier; Colette McKay; Hugh McDermott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Clinical evaluation of signal-to-noise ratio-based noise reduction in Nucleus® cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Pam W Dawson; Stefan J Mauger; Adam A Hersbach
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Spectral contrast enhancement improves speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Waldo Nogueira; Thilo Rode; Andreas Büchner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Comparative studies of speech processing strategies for cochlear implants.

Authors:  B S Wilson; C C Finley; J C Farmer; D T Lawson; B A Weber; R D Wolford; P D Kenan; M W White; M M Merzenich; R A Schindler
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 3.325

View more
  4 in total

1.  The effect of increased channel interaction on speech perception with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Tobias Goehring; Alan W Archer-Boyd; Julie G Arenberg; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 4.379

2.  A sound coding strategy based on a temporal masking model for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Eugen Kludt; Waldo Nogueira; Thomas Lenarz; Andreas Buechner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 3.  Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Tobias Goehring
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-08-25

4.  Modulation Depth Discrimination by Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Jessica J M Monaghan; Robert P Carlyon; John M Deeks
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-01-26
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.