Using temporal modulation sensitivity to select stimulation sites for processor maps in cochlear implant listeners

Audiology and Neurotology

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 247-260

  Garadat, Soha N ^a   Zwolan, Teresa A ^b   Pfingst, Bryan E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN   (Jordan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Across site differences; Cochlear implantation; Modulation detection thresholds; Personalized processor fitting; Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMPUTER; CONSONANT; ELECTRODE; ELECTROSTIMULATION; FEMALE; HEARING ACUITY; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODULATION; MODULATION DETECTION THRESHOLD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESSOR MAP; RECOGNITION; SIGNAL PROCESSOR; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; VOWEL; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; DEAFNESS; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; AGED; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; DEAFNESS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 84880320680     PISSN: 14203030     EISSN: 14219700     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000351302     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Battmer RD, Feldmeier I, Kohlenberg A, Lenarz T: Performance of the new Clarion speech processor 1.2 in quiet and in noise. Am J Otol 1997; 18:S144-S146.
2. Bierer JA: Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121: 1642-1653.
3. Bierer JA, Faulkner KF: Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interface: partial tripolar, single-channel thresholds and psychophysical tuning curves. Ear Hear 2010; 31: 247-258.
4. Boex C, Kos MI, Pelizzone M: Forward masking in different cochlear implant systems. J Acoust Soc Am 2003; 114: 2058-2065.
5. Cazals Y, Pelizzone M, Saudan O, Boex C: Lowpass filtering in amplitude modulation detection associated with vowel and consonant identification in subjects with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 96: 2048-2054.
6. Chatterjee M: Modulation masking in cochlear implant listeners: envelope versus tonotopic components. J Acoust Soc Am 2003; 113: 2042-2053.
7. Chatterjee M, Shannon RV: Forward masked excitation patterns in multielectrode electrical stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 103: 2565-2572.
8. 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.
9. Colletti V, Shannon RV: Open set speech perception with auditory brainstem implant? Laryngoscope 2005; 115: 1974-1978.
10. Dorman MF, Loizou PC, Fitzke J, Tu Z: The recognition of sentences in noise by normalhearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104: 3583-3585.
11. Eisen MD, Franck KH: Electrode interaction in pediatric cochlear implant subjects. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2005; 6: 160-170.
12. Fayad JN, Linthicum FH Jr: Multichannel cochlear implants: relation of histopathology to performance. Laryngoscope 2006; 116: 1310-1320.
13. Fayad JN, Makarem AO, Linthicum FH Jr: Histopathological assessment of fibrosis and new bone formation in implanted human temporal bones using 3D reconsruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 141: 247-252.
14. Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X: Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 110: 1150-1163.
15. Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Slattery WH 3rd: The effect of frequency allocation on phoneme recognition with the nucleus 22 cochlear implant. Am J Otol 1999; 20: 729-734.
16. Fu Q-J: Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Neuroreport 2002; 13: 1635-1639.
17. Fu Q-J, Shannon RV: Effect of electrode configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. Ear Hear 1999; 20: 332-344.
18. Fu Q-J, Shannon RV, Wang X: Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104: 3586-3596.
19. Garadat SN, Pfingst BE: Relationship between gap detection thresholds and loudness in cochlear-implant users. Hear Res 2011; 275: 130-138.
20. Garadat SN, Zwolan TA, Pfingst BE: Across-site patterns of modulation detection: relation to speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 2012; 131: 4030-4041.
21. Gfeller K, Oleson J, Knutson JF, Breheny P, Driscoll V, Olszewski C: Multivariate predictors of music perception and appraisal by adult cochlear implant users. J Am Acad Audiol 2008; 19: 120-134.
22. Hartmann R, Top G, Klinke R: Discharge patterns of cat primary auditory fibers with electrical stimulation of the cochlea. Hear Res 1984; 13: 47-62.
23. Hillenbrand J, Getty LA, Clark MJ, Wheeler K: Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97: 3099-3111.
24. Jones GL, Ho W, Drennan WR, Rubinstein JT: Relationship between channel interaction and spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 2013; 133: 425-433.
25. Kiefer J, von IIberg C, Rupprecht V, Hubner-Egner J, Knecht R: Optimized speech understanding with the continuous interleaved sampling speech coding strategy in patients with cochlear implants: effect of variations in stimulation rate and number of channels. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2000; 109: 1009-1020.
26. Levitt H: Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 1971; 49: 467-477.
27. Liberman MC, Kiang NY-S: Acoustic trauma in cats: cochlear pathology and auditory-nerve activity. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockholm) 1978; 358: 1-63.
28. Luo X, Fu QJ, Wei CG, Cao KL: Speech recognition and temporal amplitude modulation processing by Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2008; 29: 957-970.
29. McKay CM, Henshall KR: Frequency-to-electrode allocation and speech perception with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111: 1036-1044.
30. Muller-Deile J, Schmidt BJ, Rudert H: Effects of noise on speech discrimination in cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 166: 303-306.
31. Munson B, Nelson PB: Phonetic identification in quiet and in noise by listeners with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 118: 2607-2617.
32. Nadol JB Jr, Young YS, Glynn RJ: Survival of spiral ganglion cells in profound sensorineural hearing loss: implications for cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1989; 98: 411-416.
33. Nelson DA, Donaldson GS, Kreft HA: Forwardmasking spatial tuning curves in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 123: 1522-1543.
34. Nie K, Barco A, Zeng FG: Spectral and temporal cues in cochlear implant speech perception. Ear Hear 2006; 27: 208-217.
35. Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA: Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95: 1085-1099.
36. Pfingst BE, Burkholder-Juhasz RA, Xu L, Thompson CS: Across-site patterns of modulation detection in listeners with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 123: 1054-1062.
37. Pfingst BE, Xu L: Across-site variation in detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels for cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2004; 5: 11-24.
38. Richardson LM, Busby PA, Clark GM: Modulation detection interference in cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104: 442-452.
39. Rosen S: Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1992; 336: 367-373.
40. Shannon RV, Jensvold A, Padilla M, Robert ME, Wang X: Consonant recordings for speech testing. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 106:L71-L74.
41. Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M: Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995; 270: 303-304.
42. Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Wygonski J: Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104: 2467-2476.
43. Shepherd RK, Javel E: Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. I. Correlation of physiological responses with cochlear status. Hear Res 1997; 108: 112-144.
44. Skinner MW, Clark GM, Whitford LA, Seligman PM, Staller SJ, Shipp DB, Shallop JK, Everingham C, Menapace CM, Arndt PL, et al: Evaluation of a new Spectral Peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 Channel Cochlear Implant System. Am J Otol 1994; 15: 15-27.
45. Skinner MW, Holden LK, Holden TA: Effect of frequency boundary assignment on speech recognition with the SPEAK speech-coding strategy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995; 166: 307-311.
46. Skinner MW, Holden LK, Whitford LA, Plant KL, Psarros C, Holden TA: Speech recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults. Ear Hear 2002; 23: 207-223.
47. Stickney GS, Zeng FG, Litovsky R, Assmann P: Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116: 1081-1091.
48. Swanson B: Nucleus MATLAB Toolbox 3.02 Software User Manual. Lane Cove, Cochlear, 2004.
49. Throckmorton CS, Collins LM: Investigation of the effects of temporal and spatial interactions on speech-recognition skills in cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105: 861-873.
50. Van Tasell DJ, Soli SD, Kirby VM, Widin GP: Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 82: 1152-1161.
51. Wilson BS, Dorman MF: Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future. Hear Res 2008; 242: 3-21.
52. Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, Wolford RD, Eddington DK, Rabinowitz WM: Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 1991; 352: 236-238.
53. Zwolan TA, Collins LM, Wakefield GH: Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 102: 3673-3685.