Literature DB >> 33578696

Word Recognition and Frequency Selectivity in Cochlear Implant Simulation: Effect of Channel Interaction.

Pierre-Antoine Cucis1,2,3, Christian Berger-Vachon2,4,5, Hung Thaï-Van2,6,7, Ruben Hermann1,2,3, Stéphane Gallego2,8, Eric Truy1,2,3.   

Abstract

In cochlear implants (CI), spread of neural excitation may produce channel interaction. Channel interaction disturbs the spectral resolution and, among other factors, seems to impair speech recognition, especially in noise. In this study, two tests were performed with 20 adult normal-hearing (NH) subjects under different vocoded simulations. First, there was a measurement of word recognition in noise while varying the number of selected channels (4, 8, 12 or 16 maxima out of 20) and the degree of simulated channel interaction ("Low", "Medium" and "High"). Then, there was an evaluation of spectral resolution function of the degree of simulated channel interaction, reflected by the sharpness (Q10dB) of psychophysical tuning curves (PTCs). The results showed a significant effect of the simulated channel interaction on word recognition but did not find an effect of the number of selected channels. The intelligibility decreased significantly for the highest degree of channel interaction. Similarly, the highest simulated channel interaction impaired significantly the Q10dB. Additionally, a strong intra-individual correlation between frequency selectivity and word recognition in noise was observed. Lastly, the individual changes in frequency selectivity were positively correlated with the changes in word recognition when the degree of interaction went from "Low" to "High". To conclude, the degradation seen for the highest degree of channel interaction suggests a threshold effect on frequency selectivity and word recognition. The correlation between frequency selectivity and intelligibility in noise supports the hypothesis that PTCs Q10dB can account for word recognition in certain conditions. Moreover, the individual variations of performances observed among subjects suggest that channel interaction does not have the same effect on each individual. Finally, these results highlight the importance of taking into account subjects' individuality and to evaluate channel interaction through the speech processor.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cochlear implant; normal-hearing; speech in noise; spread of excitation; vocoder simulation

Year:  2021        PMID: 33578696      PMCID: PMC7916371          DOI: 10.3390/jcm10040679

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Med        ISSN: 2077-0383            Impact factor:   4.241


  54 in total

1.  On the number of channels needed to understand speech.

Authors:  P C Loizou; M Dorman; Z Tu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 2.  Supplementary formulas and tables for calculating and interconverting speech recognition scores in transformed arcsine units.

Authors:  Robert L Sherbecoe; Gerald A Studebaker
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  Forward-masked spatial tuning curves in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  David A Nelson; Gail S Donaldson; Heather Kreft
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Listening effort with cochlear implant simulations.

Authors:  Carina Pals; Anastasios Sarampalis; Deniz Baskent
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Assessing the Electrode-Neuron Interface with the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential, Electrode Position, and Behavioral Thresholds.

Authors:  Lindsay DeVries; Rachel Scheperle; Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-29

6.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.

Authors:  H Levitt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1971-02       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Re-examining the relationship between number of cochlear implant channels and maximal speech intelligibility.

Authors:  Naomi B H Croghan; Sara I Duran; Zachary M Smith
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Cochlear implants and quality of life: a prospective study.

Authors:  Birger Mo; Morten Lindbaek; Sten Harris
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Comparing Rapid and Traditional Forward-Masked Spatial Tuning Curves in Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Heather A Kreft; Lindsay A DeVries; Julie G Arenberg; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

10.  Listening to speech in a background of other talkers: effects of talker number and noise vocoding.

Authors:  Stuart Rosen; Pamela Souza; Caroline Ekelund; Arooj A Majeed
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  1 in total

1.  Intra-Cochlear Current Spread Correlates with Speech Perception in Experienced Adult Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Charles-Alexandre Joly; Pierre Reynard; Ruben Hermann; Fabien Seldran; Stéphane Gallego; Samar Idriss; Hung Thai-Van
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-13       Impact factor: 4.241

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.