» Articles » PMID: 15735937

Noise Susceptibility of Cochlear Implant Users: the Role of Spectral Resolution and Smearing

Overview
Date 2005 Mar 1
PMID 15735937
Citations 178
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

The relationship between channel interaction, electrode placement, and speech perception in adult cochlear implant users.

Berg K, Goldsworthy R, Noble J, Dawant B, Gifford R J Acoust Soc Am. 2024; 156(6):4289-4302.

PMID: 39740049 PMC: 11693204. DOI: 10.1121/10.0034603.


The effect of speech masking on the human subcortical response to continuous speech.

Polonenko M, Maddox R bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39713441 PMC: 11661217. DOI: 10.1101/2024.12.10.627771.


Comparison of Performance for Cochlear-Implant Listeners Using Audio Processing Strategies Based on Short-Time Fast Fourier Transform or Spectral Feature Extraction.

Zhang Y, Johannesen P, Molaee-Ardekani B, Wijetillake A, Attili Chiea R, Hasan P Ear Hear. 2024; 46(1):163-183.

PMID: 39680489 PMC: 11637581. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001565.


Impact of reduced spectral resolution on temporal-coherence-based source segregation.

Viswanathan V, Heinz M, Shinn-Cunningham B J Acoust Soc Am. 2024; 156(6):3862-3876.

PMID: 39655945 PMC: 11637563. DOI: 10.1121/10.0034545.


Investigating the effect of cochlear implant usage metrics on cortical auditory-evoked potential responses in adult recipients post-implantation.

Bogdanov C, Goulios H, Mulders W, Tavora-Vieira D Front Neurosci. 2024; 18:1453274.

PMID: 39640296 PMC: 11619141. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1453274.


References
1.
Bacon S, Opie J, Montoya D . The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998; 41(3):549-63. DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4103.549. View

2.
Baer T, Moore B . Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994; 95(4):2277-80. DOI: 10.1121/1.408640. View

3.
Festen J, PLOMP R . Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990; 88(4):1725-36. DOI: 10.1121/1.400247. View

4.
Kiefer J, Muller J, Pfennigdorff T, Schon F, Helms J, von Ilberg C . Speech understanding in quiet and in noise with the CIS speech coding strategy (MED-EL Combi-40) compared to the multipeak and spectral peak strategies (nucleus). ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1996; 58(3):127-35. DOI: 10.1159/000276812. View

5.
Dowell R, Seligman P, Blamey P, Clark G . Speech perception using a two-formant 22-electrode cochlear prosthesis in quiet and in noise. Acta Otolaryngol. 1987; 104(5-6):439-46. DOI: 10.3109/00016488709128272. View