How to Vocode: Using Channel Vocoders for Cochlear-implant Research

Overview

Journal J Acoust Soc Am

Publisher American Institute of Physics

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2024 Apr 3

PMID 38568143

Authors

Margaret Cychosz

Matthew B Winn

Matthew J Goupell

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The channel vocoder has become a useful tool to understand the impact of specific forms of auditory degradation-particularly the spectral and temporal degradation that reflect cochlear-implant processing. Vocoders have many parameters that allow researchers to answer questions about cochlear-implant processing in ways that overcome some logistical complications of controlling for factors in individual cochlear implant users. However, there is such a large variety in the implementation of vocoders that the term "vocoder" is not specific enough to describe the signal processing used in these experiments. Misunderstanding vocoder parameters can result in experimental confounds or unexpected stimulus distortions. This paper highlights the signal processing parameters that should be specified when describing vocoder construction. The paper also provides guidance on how to determine vocoder parameters within perception experiments, given the experimenter's goals and research questions, to avoid common signal processing mistakes. Throughout, we will assume that experimenters are interested in vocoders with the specific goal of better understanding cochlear implants.

Citing Articles

Impact of Mask Type as Training Target for Speech Intelligibility and Quality in Cochlear-Implant Noise Reduction.

Henry F, Glavin M, Jones E, Parsi A Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(20).

PMID: 39460094 PMC: 11511210. DOI: 10.3390/s24206614.

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.

Cochlear-implant simulated spectral degradation attenuates emotional responses to environmental sounds.

Jahn K, Wiegand-Shahani B, Moturi V, Kashiwagura S, Doak K Int J Audiol. 2024; :1-7.

PMID: 39146030 PMC: 11833750. DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2024.2385552.

Attenuation and distortion components of age-related hearing loss: Contributions to recognizing temporal-envelope filtered speech in modulated noise.

Fogerty D, Ahlstrom J, Dubno J J Acoust Soc Am. 2024; 156(1):93-106.

PMID: 38958486 PMC: 11223777. DOI: 10.1121/10.0026450.

Spectral degradation and carrier sentences increase age-related temporal processing deficits in a cue-specific manner.

Xie Z, Gaskins C, Tinnemore A, Shader M, Gordon-Salant S, Anderson S J Acoust Soc Am. 2024; 155(6):3983-3994.

PMID: 38934563 PMC: 11213620. DOI: 10.1121/10.0026434.

References

Waddington E, Jaekel B, Tinnemore A, Gordon-Salant S, Goupell M . Recognition of Accented Speech by Cochlear-Implant Listeners: Benefit of Audiovisual Cues. Ear Hear. 2020; 41(5):1236-1250. PMC: 7880303. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000842. View

Hughes M, Vander Werff K, Brown C, Abbas P, Kelsay D, Teagle H . A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 2002; 22(6):471-86. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200112000-00004. View

Klein K, Walker E, McMurray B . Delayed Lexical Access and Cascading Effects on Spreading Semantic Activation During Spoken Word Recognition in Children With Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants: Evidence From Eye-Tracking. Ear Hear. 2022; 44(2):338-357. PMC: 9957808. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001286. View

DeVries L, Scheperle R, Bierer J . Assessing the Electrode-Neuron Interface with the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential, Electrode Position, and Behavioral Thresholds. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2016; 17(3):237-52. PMC: 4854826. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-016-0557-9. View

Zeng F . Celebrating the one millionth cochlear implant. JASA Express Lett. 2022; 2(7):077201. DOI: 10.1121/10.0012825. View

Dorman M, Loizou P, Rainey D . Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 102(4):2403-11. DOI: 10.1121/1.419603. View

Nittrouer S, Tarr E, Bolster V, Caldwell-Tarr A, Moberly A, Lowenstein J . Low-frequency signals support perceptual organization of implant-simulated speech for adults and children. Int J Audiol. 2014; 53(4):270-84. PMC: 3954900. DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2013.871649. View

Xu L, Thompson C, Pfingst B . Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005; 117(5):3255-67. PMC: 1414641. DOI: 10.1121/1.1886405. View

Stakhovskaya O, Sridhar D, Bonham B, Leake P . Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007; 8(2):220-33. PMC: 2394499. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-007-0076-9. View

10.

Won J, Jones G, Moon I, Rubinstein J . Spectral and temporal analysis of simulated dead regions in cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2015; 16(2):285-307. PMC: 4368650. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-014-0502-8. View

11.

Loizou P, Dorman M, Tu Z . On the number of channels needed to understand speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999; 106(4 Pt 1):2097-103. DOI: 10.1121/1.427954. View

12.

Moore B, Glasberg B . A revised model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Hear Res. 2004; 188(1-2):70-88. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-5955(03)00347-2. View

13.

Eisenberg L, Martinez A, Holowecky S, Pogorelsky S . Recognition of lexically controlled words and sentences by children with normal hearing and children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2002; 23(5):450-62. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200210000-00007. View

14.

Golinkoff R, Ma W, Song L, Hirsh-Pasek K . Twenty-Five Years Using the Intermodal Preferential Looking Paradigm to Study Language Acquisition: What Have We Learned?. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015; 8(3):316-39. DOI: 10.1177/1745691613484936. View

15.

Fu Q, Nogaki G . Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2005; 6(1):19-27. PMC: 2504636. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-004-5024-3. View

16.

Newman R, Chatterjee M, Morini G, Remez R . Toddlers' comprehension of degraded signals: Noise-vocoded versus sine-wave analogs. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015; 138(3):EL311-7. PMC: 4575314. DOI: 10.1121/1.4929731. View

17.

Souza P, Rosen S . Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 126(2):792-805. PMC: 2730710. DOI: 10.1121/1.3158835. View

18.

Newman R, Chatterjee M . Toddlers' recognition of noise-vocoded speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013; 133(1):483-94. PMC: 3548833. DOI: 10.1121/1.4770241. View

19.

Davis M, Johnsrude I, Hervais-Adelman A, Taylor K, McGettigan C . Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005; 134(2):222-41. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.134.2.222. View

20.

Stafford R, Stafford J, Wells J, Loizou P, Keller M . Vocoder simulations of highly focused cochlear stimulation with limited dynamic range and discriminable steps. Ear Hear. 2013; 35(2):262-70. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182a768e8. View