Vibro-Tactile Enhancement of Speech Intelligibility in Multi-talker Noise for Simulated Cochlear Implant Listening

Overview

Journal Trends Hear

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2018 Sep 18

PMID 30222089

Citations 23

Authors

Mark D Fletcher

Sean R Mills

Tobias Goehring

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Many cochlear implant (CI) users achieve excellent speech understanding in acoustically quiet conditions but most perform poorly in the presence of background noise. An important contributor to this poor speech-in-noise performance is the limited transmission of low-frequency sound information through CIs. Recent work has suggested that tactile presentation of this low-frequency sound information could be used to improve speech-in-noise performance for CI users. Building on this work, we investigated whether vibro-tactile stimulation can improve speech intelligibility in multi-talker noise. The signal used for tactile stimulation was derived from the speech-in-noise using a computationally inexpensive algorithm. Eight normal-hearing participants listened to CI simulated speech-in-noise both with and without concurrent tactile stimulation of their fingertip. Participants' speech recognition performance was assessed before and after a training regime, which took place over 3 consecutive days and totaled around 30 min of exposure to CI-simulated speech-in-noise with concurrent tactile stimulation. Tactile stimulation was found to improve the intelligibility of speech in multi-talker noise, and this improvement was found to increase in size after training. Presentation of such tactile stimulation could be achieved by a compact, portable device and offer an inexpensive and noninvasive means for improving speech-in-noise performance in CI users.

Citing Articles

Touch Helps Hearing: Evidence From Continuous Audio-Tactile Stimulation.

Fu X, Smulders F, Riecke L Ear Hear. 2024; 46(1):184-195.

PMID: 39680490 PMC: 11637573. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001566.

Sensory-substitution based sound perception using a spinal computer-brain interface.

Miklos G, Halasz L, Hasslberger M, Toth E, Manola L, Hagh Gooie S Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):24879.

PMID: 39438593 PMC: 11496521. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-75779-2.

Neural Decoding of the Speech Envelope: Effects of Intelligibility and Spectral Degradation.

Deighton MacIntyre A, Carlyon R, Goehring T Trends Hear. 2024; 28:23312165241266316.

PMID: 39183533 PMC: 11345737. DOI: 10.1177/23312165241266316.

Improved tactile speech perception and noise robustness using audio-to-tactile sensory substitution with amplitude envelope expansion.

Fletcher M, Akis E, Verschuur C, Perry S Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):15029.

PMID: 38951556 PMC: 11217272. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-65510-6.

Localizing 3D motion through the fingertips: Following in the footsteps of elephants.

Snir A, Ciesla K, Ozdemir G, Vekslar R, Amedi A iScience. 2024; 27(6):109820.

PMID: 38799571 PMC: 11126990. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.109820.

References

Kishon-Rabin L, BOOTHROYD A, Hanin L . Speechreading enhancement: a comparison of spatial-tactile display of voice fundamental frequency (F0) with auditory F0. J Acoust Soc Am. 1996; 100(1):593-602. DOI: 10.1121/1.415885. View

Weisenberger J . Sensitivity to amplitude-modulated vibrotactile signals. J Acoust Soc Am. 1986; 80(6):1707-15. DOI: 10.1121/1.394283. View

Gifford R, Dorman M, Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Polak M, Driscoll C . Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments. Ear Hear. 2013; 34(4):413-25. PMC: 3742689. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31827e8163. View

Weisenberger J, Broadstone S, Saunders F . Evaluation of two multichannel tactile aids for the hearing impaired. J Acoust Soc Am. 1989; 86(5):1764-75. DOI: 10.1121/1.398608. View

BROOKS P, Frost B, MASON J, Gibson D . Continuing evaluation of the Queen's University tactile vocoder II: Identification of open set sentences and tracking narrative. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1986; 23(1):129-38. View

Rothenberg M, Verrillo R, Zahorian S, Brachman M, Bolanowski Jr S . Vibrotactile frequency for encoding a speech parameter. J Acoust Soc Am. 1977; 62(4):1003-12. DOI: 10.1121/1.381610. View

Nelson D, Kreft H, Anderson E, Donaldson G . Spatial tuning curves from apical, middle, and basal electrodes in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011; 129(6):3916-33. PMC: 3135148. DOI: 10.1121/1.3583503. View

Waldstein R, BOOTHROYD A . Comparison of two multichannel tactile devices as supplements to speechreading in a postlingually deafened adult. Ear Hear. 1995; 16(2):198-208. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199504000-00007. View

Oxenham A, Kreft H . Speech perception in tones and noise via cochlear implants reveals influence of spectral resolution on temporal processing. Trends Hear. 2014; 18. PMC: 4227666. DOI: 10.1177/2331216514553783. View

10.

Glasberg B, Moore B . Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data. Hear Res. 1990; 47(1-2):103-38. DOI: 10.1016/0378-5955(90)90170-t. View

11.

Shannon R, Zeng F, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M . Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science. 1995; 270(5234):303-4. DOI: 10.1126/science.270.5234.303. View

12.

Carroll J, Tiaden S, Zeng F . Fundamental frequency is critical to speech perception in noise in combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011; 130(4):2054-62. PMC: 3206909. DOI: 10.1121/1.3631563. View

13.

Chang J, Bai J, Zeng F . Unintelligible low-frequency sound enhances simulated cochlear-implant speech recognition in noise. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2006; 53(12 Pt 2):2598-601. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2006.883793. View

14.

Brown C, Bacon S . Low-frequency speech cues and simulated electric-acoustic hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 125(3):1658-65. PMC: 2736727. DOI: 10.1121/1.3068441. View

15.

Qin M, Oxenham A . Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 114(1):446-54. DOI: 10.1121/1.1579009. View

16.

Chung K, McKibben N . Microphone directionality, pre-emphasis filter, and wind noise in cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011; 22(9):586-600. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.22.9.4. View

17.

Faulkner A, Ball V, Rosen S, Moore B, Fourcin A . Speech pattern hearing aids for the profoundly hearing impaired: speech perception and auditory abilities. J Acoust Soc Am. 1992; 91(4 Pt 1):2136-55. DOI: 10.1121/1.403674. View

18.

BROOKS P, Frost B, MASON J, Gibson D . Continuing evaluation of the Queen's University tactile vocoder. I: Identification of open set words. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1986; 23(1):119-28. View

19.

Dawson P, Mauger S, Hersbach A . Clinical evaluation of signal-to-noise ratio-based noise reduction in Nucleus® cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear. 2011; 32(3):382-90. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e318201c200. View

20.

Breeuwer M, PLOMP R . Speechreading supplemented with frequency-selective sound-pressure information. J Acoust Soc Am. 1984; 76(3):686-91. DOI: 10.1121/1.391255. View