How cochlear implants encode speech

Current Opinion in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 444-448

  Rubinstein, Jay T ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Binaural hearing; Cochlear implant; Music perception; Signal processing; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ASSOCIATION; BINAURAL HEARING; COCHLEA; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; HEARING; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; LOUDNESS; MUSIC; NOISE; PITCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 4644277394     PISSN: 10689508     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.moo.0000134452.24819.c0     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Dynes SB, Delgutte B: Phase-locking of auditory-nerve discharges to sinusoidal electric stimulation of the cochlea. Hear Res 1992, 58:79-90.
2. Litvak LM, Delgutte B, Eddington DK: Improved temporal coding of sinusoids in electric stimulation of the auditory nerve using desynchronizing pulse trains. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 114:2079-2098. This paper and two others published with it, references [48] and [49], demonstrate in single-unit recordings that high-rate pulse trains can desynchronize the auditory nerve and improve temporal coding.
3. Schuknecht HF: Pathology of the Ear. Malvern, PA: Lea & Febiger; 1993.
4. Cohen LT, Richardson LM, Saunders E, Cowan RS: Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking. Hear Res 2003, 179:72-87.
5. Incesulu A, Nadol JB Jr: Correlation of acoustic threshold measures and spiral ganglion cell survival in severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss: implications for cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1998, 107:906-911.
6. Lee DS, Lee JS, Oh SH, et al.: Cross-modal plasticity and cochlear implants. Nature 2001, 409:149-150.
7. Moore BC: Coding of sounds in the auditory system and its relevance to signal processing and coding in cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2003, 24:243-254. An outstanding review of psychoacoustics pertinent to speech coding in cochlear implants.
8. Fretz RJ, Fravel RP: Design and function: a physical and electrical description of the 3M House cochlear implant system. Ear Hear 1985, 6:14S-19S.
9. House WF, Urban J: Long term results of electrode implantation and electronic stimulation of the cochlea in man. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1973, 82:504-517.
10. Rubinstein JT, Parkinson WS, Lowder MW, et al.: Single-channel to multichannel conversions in adult cochlear implant subjects. Am J Otol 1998, 19:461-486.
11. Wilson BS, Lawsqn DT, Muller JM, et al.: Cochlear implants: some likely next steps. Ann Rev Biomed Engin 2003, 5:207-249. An excellent summary of future directions with cochlear implants.
12. Fu OJ: Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Neuroreport 2002, 13:1835-1839. This paper demonstrates that temporal processing ability in implant recipients correlates with speech perception.
13. th Congress of Asia Pacific Symposium on Cochlear Implant and Related Sciences, Taipei, 2003.
14. th European Symposium on Paediatric Cochlear Implantation. Geneva, 2004.
15. Eddington DK: Speech discrimination in deaf subjects with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 1980, 68:885-891.
16. Nobili R, Mammano F, Ashmore J: How well do we understand the cochlea? Trends Neurosci 1998, 21:159-167.
17. Moore BCJ: An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing. Amsterdam; Boston: Academic Press; 2003. This classic text is the premier introduction and reference to psychoacoustics.
18. Boex C, de Balthasar C, Kos MI, Pelizzone M: Electrical field interactions in different cochlear implant systems. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 114:2049-2057. This paper and reference [20] demonstrate that channel interaction can be measured in individual patients and that speech perception improves when highly interactive electrodes are removed from the patient's program.
19. Chatterjee M: Modulation masking in cochlear implant listeners: envelope vs. tonotopic components. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 113:2042-2053.
20. Boex C, de Balthasar C, Kos MI, Pelizzone M: Forward masking in different cochlear implant systems. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 114:2058-2065.
21. Henry BA, Turner CW: The resolution of complex spectral patterns by cochlear implant and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 113:2861-2873.
22. Moore BCJ: Cochlear Hearing Loss. London: Whurr; 1998.
23. Fu QJ, Shannon RV: Frequency mapping in cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2002, 23:339-348.
24. Fu QJ, Galvin JJ: The effects of short-term training for spectrally mismatched noise-band speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 113:1065-1072.
25. Baskent D, Shannon RV: Speech recognition under conditions of frequency-place compression and expansion. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 113:2064-2076.
26. Faulkner A, Rosen S, Stanton D: Simulations of tonotopically mapped speech processors for cochlear implant electrodes varying in insertion depth. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 113:1073-1080.
27. Miller CA, Abbas PJ, Nourski KV, et al.: Electrode configuration influences action potential initiation site and ensemble stochastic response properties. Hear Res 2003, 175:200-214.
28. Mino H, Rubinstein JT, Miller CA, Abbas PJ: Effects of electrode-to-fiber distance on temporal jitter with electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Engin 2004, 51:13-20.
29. Rubinstein JT, Miller CA: How do cochlear prostheses work? Curr Opin Neurobiol 1999, 9:399-404.
30. Wackym PA, Firszt JB, Gaggl W, et al.: Electrophysiologic effects of placing cochlear implant electrodes in a perimodiolar position in young children. Laryngoscope 2004, 114:71-76.
31. Hillman T, Badi AN, Normann RA, et al.: Cochlear nerve stimulation with a 3-dimensional penetrating electrode array. Otol Neurotol 2003, 24:764-768.
32. Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, et al.: Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 1991, 352:236-238.
33. Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Kamath V, et al.: Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995, 270:303-304.
34. Qin MK, Oxenham AJ: Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 114:446-454. This paper demonstrates that understanding speech in competing talker noise requires more channels of information, or more fine-structure than it does in steady-state noise.
35. Turner CW, Gantz BJ, Vidal C, et al.: Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: Benefits of residual acoustic hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2004, 115:1729-1735. An important analysis of the interaction between acoustic and electric hearing and the benefits of improved perception of the fundamental frequency of speech.
36. Gfeller K, Christ A, Knutson J, et al.: The effects of familiarity and complexity on appraisal of complex songs by cochlear implant recipients and normal hearing adults. J Music Ther 2003, 40:78-112.
37. Xu L, Pfingst BE: Relative importance of temporal envelope and fine structure in lexical-tone perception. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 114:3024-3027.
38. Barry JG, Blamey PJ, Martin LF, et al.: Tone discrimination in Cantonese-speaking children using a cochlear implant. Clin Linguist Phonet 2002, 16:79-99.
39. Smith ZM, Delgutte B, Oxenham AJ: Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature 2002, 416:87-90. This paper demonstrates the dichotomy between envelope and temporal fine structure in perception of speech, music, and ITD.
40. Rubinstein JT, Hong RS: Signal coding in cochlear implants: Exploiting stochastic effects of electrical stimulation. Ann Otol. Rhinol Laryngol 2003, 112(suppl 191):14-19.
41. Long CJ, Eddington DK, Colburn HS, Rabinowitz WM: Binaural sensitivity as a function of interaural electrode position with a bilateral cochlear implant user. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 114:1565-1574. This paper is important because it shows the need to pitch-match electrodes for preservation of ITD sensitivity with bilateral implants.
42. van Hoesel RJ, Tyler RS: Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 113:1617-1630. It is a detailed study of factors contributing to performance of bilateral cochlear implants.
43. Joris PX: Interaural time sensitivity dominated by cochlea-induced envelope patterns. J Neurosci 2003, 23:6345-6350.
44. Tyler RS, Dunn CC, Witt SA, Preece JP: Update on bilateral cochlear implantation. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003, 11:388-393.
45. Jolly CN, Spelman FA, Clopton BM: Quadrupolar stimulation for cochlear prostheses: modeling and experimental data. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1996, 43:857-865.
46. Eddington DK, Tierney J, Noel V, et al.: Third Quarterly Progress Report, NIH Contract NO1-DC2-1001 2002. Neural Prosthesis Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
47. Shepherd RK, Javel E: Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: II. Effect of stimulus waveshape on single fibre response properties. Hear Res 1999, 130:171-188.
48. Litvak LM, Smith ZM, Delgutte B, et al.: Desynchronization of electrically evoked auditory-nerve activity by high-frequency pulse trains of long duration. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 114:2066-2078.
49. Litvak L, Delgutte B, Eddington D, et al.: Improved neural representation of vowels in electric stimulation using desynchronizing pulse trains. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 114:2099-2111.
50. Hong RS, Rubinstein JT: High-rate conditioning pulse trains in cochlear implants: dynamic range measures with sinusoidal stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 114:3327-3342.
51. Hong RS, Rubinstein JT, Wehner D, et al.: Dynamic range enhancement for cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2003, 24:590-595.
52. Ferguson WD, Collins LM, Smith DW: Psychophysical threshold variability in cochlear implant subjects. Hear Res 2003, 180:101-113.
53. Oxenham AJ, Bernstein JGW, Penagos H: Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception. PNAS 2004, 101:1421-1425.
54. Vandali AE: Emphasis of short-duration acoustic speech cues for cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 2001, 109:2049-2061.
55. Geurts L, Wouters J: Enhancing the speech envelope of continuous interleaved sampling processors for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 1999, 105:2476-2484.
56. van Wieringen A, Carlyon RP, Long CJ, et al.: Pitch of amplitude-modulated irregular-rate stimuli in acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 114:1516-1528.
57. Carlyon RP, van Wieringen A, Long CJ, et al.: Temporal pitch mechanisms in acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2002, 112:621-633.
58. Geurts L, Wouters J: Better place-coding of the fundamental frequency in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2004, 115:844-852. An elegantly simple approach to improving perception of the fundamental frequency of speech.
59. McDermott HJ, McKay CM, Richardson LM, et al.: Application of loudness models to sound processing for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 114:2190-2197. A unique approach to using multielectrode loudness models to improve loudness coding.
60. Stone MA, Moore BC. Effect of the speed of a single-channel dynamic range compressor on intelligibility in a competing speech task. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 114:1023-1034.
61. James CJ, Blamey PJ, Martin L, et al. : Adaptive dynamic range optimization for cochlear implants: a preliminary study. Ear Hear 2002, 23(1 suppl):49S-58S.
62. Kreft HA, Donaldson GS, Nelson DA: Effects of pulse rate on threshold and dynamic range in Clarion cochlear-implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 2004, 115:1885-1888.
63. Frijns JH, Klop WM, Bonnet RM, et al.: Optimizing the number of electrodes with high-rate stimulation of the clarion CII cochlear implant Acta OtoLaryngol 2003, 123:138-142.
64. Yoo SK, Wang G, Collison F, et al.: Three-dimensional localization of cochlear implant electrodes using epipolar stereophotogrammetry. IEEE Trans Biomed Engin, in press.