A method to dynamically control unwanted loudness cues when measuring amplitude modulation detection in cochlear implant users

Stimulation Rate and Voice Pitch Perception in Cochlear Implants

The stimulation rate in cochlear implant (CI) sound coding, or the "carrier" rate in pulses per second (pps), is known to influence pitch perception, as well as loudness perception and sound quality. Our main objective was to investigate the effects of reduced carrier rate on the loudness and pitch of coded speech samples. We describe two experiments with 16 Nucleus® CI users, where we controlled modulation characteristics and carrier rate using Spectral and Temporal Enhanced Processing (STEP), a novel experimental multichannel sound coder. We used a fixed set of threshold and comfortable stimulation levels for each subject, obtained from clinical MAPs. In the first experiment, we determined equivalence for voice pitch ranking and voice gender categorization between the Advanced Combination Encoder (ACE), a widely used clinical strategy in Nucleus® recipients, and STEP for fundamental frequencies (F0) 120-250 Hz. In the second experiment, loudness was determined as a function of the input amplitude of speech samples for carrier rates of 1000, 500, and 250 pps per channel. Then, using equally loud sound coder programs, we evaluated the effect of carrier rate on voice pitch perception. Although nearly all subjects could categorize voice gender significantly above chance, pitch ranking varied across subjects. Overall, carrier rate did not substantially affect voice pitch ranking or voice gender categorization: as long as the carrier rate was at least twice the fundamental frequency, or when stimulation pulses for the lowest, 250 pps carrier were aligned to F0 peaks. These results indicate that carrier rates as low as 250 pps per channel are sufficient to support functional voice pitch perception for those CI users sensitive to temporal pitch cues; at least when temporal modulations and pulse timings in the coder output are well controlled by novel strategies such as STEP.

Modulation Depth Discrimination by Cochlear Implant Users

Cochlear implants (CIs) convey the amplitude envelope of speech by modulating high-rate pulse trains. However, not all of the envelope may be necessary to perceive amplitude modulations (AMs); the effective envelope depth may be limited by forward and backward masking from the envelope peaks. Three experiments used modulated pulse trains to measure which portions of the envelope can be effectively processed by CI users as a function of AM frequency. Experiment 1 used a three-interval forced-choice task to test the ability of CI users to discriminate less-modulated pulse trains from a fully modulated standard, without controlling for loudness. The stimuli in experiment 2 were identical, but a two-interval task was used in which participants were required to choose the less-modulated interval, ignoring loudness. Catch trials, in which judgements based on level or modulation depth would give opposing answers, were included. Experiment 3 employed novel stimuli whose modulation envelope could be modified below a variable point in the dynamic range, without changing the loudness of the stimulus. Overall, results showed that substantial portions of the envelope are not accurately encoded by CI users. In experiment 1, where loudness cues were available, participants on average were insensitive to changes in the bottom 30% of their dynamic range. In experiment 2, where loudness was controlled, participants appeared insensitive to changes in the bottom 50% of the dynamic range. In experiment 3, participants were insensitive to changes in the bottom 80% of the dynamic range. We discuss potential reasons for this insensitivity and implications for CI speech-processing strategies.

Relationship Between Peripheral and Psychophysical Measures of Amplitude Modulation Detection in Cochlear Implant Users

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates the relationship between electrophysiological and psychophysical measures of amplitude modulation (AM) detection. Prior studies have reported both measures of AM detection recorded separately from cochlear implant (CI) users and acutely deafened animals, but no study has made both measures in the same CI users. Animal studies suggest a progressive loss of high-frequency encoding as one ascends the auditory pathway from the auditory nerve to the cortex. Because the CI speech processor uses the envelope of an ongoing acoustic signal to modulate pulse trains that are subsequently delivered to the intracochlear electrodes, it is of interest to explore auditory nerve responses to modulated stimuli. In addition, psychophysical AM detection abilities have been correlated with speech perception outcomes. Thus, the goal was to explore how the auditory nerve responds to AM stimuli and to relate those physiologic measures to perception.

DESIGN

Eight patients using Cochlear Ltd. Implants participated in this study. Electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) were recorded using a 4000 pps pulse train that was sinusoidally amplitude modulated at 125, 250, 500, and 1000 Hz rates. Responses were measured for each pulse over at least one modulation cycle for an apical, medial, and basal electrode. Psychophysical modulation detection thresholds (MDTs) were also measured via a three-alternative forced choice, two-down, one-up adaptive procedure using the same modulation frequencies and electrodes.

RESULTS

ECAPs were recorded from individual pulses in the AM pulse train. ECAP amplitudes varied sinusoidally, reflecting the sinusoidal variation in the stimulus. A modulated response amplitude (MRA) metric was calculated as the difference in the maximal and minimum ECAP amplitudes over the modulation cycles. MRA increased as modulation frequency increased, with no apparent cutoff (up to 1000 Hz). In contrast, MDTs increased as the modulation frequency increased. This trend is inconsistent with the physiologic measures. For a fixed modulation frequency, correlations were observed between MDTs and MRAs; this trend was evident at all frequencies except 1000 Hz (although only statistically significant for 250 and 500 Hz AM rates), possibly an indication of central limitations in processing of high modulation frequencies. Finally, peripheral responses were larger and psychophysical thresholds were lower in the apical electrodes relative to basal and medial electrodes, which may reflect better cochlear health and neural survival evidenced by lower preoperative low-frequency audiometric thresholds and steeper growth of neural responses in ECAP amplitude growth functions for apical electrodes.

CONCLUSIONS

Robust ECAPs were recorded for all modulation frequencies tested. ECAP amplitudes varied sinusoidally, reflecting the periodicity of the modulated stimuli. MRAs increased as the modulation frequency increased, a trend we attribute to neural adaptation. For low modulation frequencies, there are multiple current steps between the peak and valley of the modulation cycle, which means successive stimuli are more similar to one another and neural responses are more likely to adapt. Higher MRAs were correlated with lower psychophysical thresholds at low modulation frequencies but not at 1000 Hz, implying a central limitation to processing of modulated stimuli.

Rate modulation detection thresholds for cochlear implant users

The perception of temporal amplitude modulations is critical for speech understanding by cochlear implant (CI) users. The present study compared the ability of CI users to detect sinusoidal modulations of the electrical stimulation rate and current level, at different presentation levels (80% and 40% of the dynamic range) and modulation frequencies (10 and 100 Hz). Rate modulation detection thresholds (RMDTs) and amplitude modulation detection thresholds (AMDTs) were measured and compared to assess whether there was a perceptual advantage to either modulation method. Both RMDTs and AMDTs improved with increasing presentation level and decreasing modulation frequency. RMDTs and AMDTs were correlated, indicating that a common processing mechanism may underlie the perception of rate modulation and amplitude modulation, or that some subject-dependent factors affect both types of modulation detection.

Discrimination of Stochastic Frequency Modulation by Cochlear Implant Users

BACKGROUND

Past work has shown that low-rate frequency modulation (FM) may help preserve signal coherence, aid segmentation at word and syllable boundaries, and benefit speech intelligibility in the presence of a masker.

PURPOSE

This study evaluated whether difficulties in speech perception by cochlear implant (CI) users relate to a deficit in the ability to discriminate among stochastic low-rate patterns of FM.

RESEARCH DESIGN

RESEARCH DESIGN

This is a correlational study assessing the association between the ability to discriminate stochastic patterns of low-rate FM and the intelligibility of speech in noise.

STUDY SAMPLE

Thirteen postlingually deafened adult CI users participated in this study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using modulators derived from 5-Hz lowpass noise applied to a 1-kHz carrier, thresholds were measured in terms of frequency excursion both in quiet and with a speech-babble masker present, stimulus duration, and signal-to-noise ratio in the presence of a speech-babble masker. Speech perception ability was assessed in the presence of the same speech-babble masker. Relationships were evaluated with Pearson product-moment correlation analysis with correction for family-wise error, and commonality analysis to determine the unique and common contributions across psychoacoustic variables to the association with speech ability.

RESULTS

Significant correlations were obtained between masked speech intelligibility and three metrics of FM discrimination involving either signal-to-noise ratio or stimulus duration, with shared variance among the three measures accounting for much of the effect. Compared to past results from young normal-hearing adults and older adults with either normal hearing or a mild-to-moderate hearing loss, mean FM discrimination thresholds obtained from CI users were higher in all conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability to process the pattern of frequency excursions of stochastic FM may, in part, have a common basis with speech perception in noise. Discrimination of differences in the temporally distributed place coding of the stimulus could serve as this common basis for CI users.

The effect of presentation level and stimulation rate on speech perception and modulation detection for cochlear implant users

In order to improve speech understanding for cochlear implant users, it is important to maximize the transmission of temporal information. The combined effects of stimulation rate and presentation level on temporal information transfer and speech understanding remain unclear. The present study systematically varied presentation level (60, 50, and 40 dBA) and stimulation rate [500 and 2400 pulses per second per electrode (pps)] in order to observe how the effect of rate on speech understanding changes for different presentation levels. Speech recognition in quiet and noise, and acoustic amplitude modulation detection thresholds (AMDTs) were measured with acoustic stimuli presented to speech processors via direct audio input (DAI). With the 500 pps processor, results showed significantly better performance for consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant words in quiet, and a reduced effect of noise on sentence recognition. However, no rate or level effect was found for AMDTs, perhaps partly because of amplitude compression in the sound processor. AMDTs were found to be strongly correlated with the effect of noise on sentence perception at low levels. These results indicate that AMDTs, at least when measured with the CP910 Freedom speech processor via DAI, explain between-subject variance of speech understanding, but do not explain within-subject variance for different rates and levels.

Envelope Interactions in Multi-Channel Amplitude Modulation Frequency Discrimination by Cochlear Implant Users

Rationale

Previous cochlear implant (CI) studies have shown that single-channel amplitude modulation frequency discrimination (AMFD) can be improved when coherent modulation is delivered to additional channels. It is unclear whether the multi-channel advantage is due to increased loudness, multiple envelope representations, or to component channels with better temporal processing. Measuring envelope interference may shed light on how modulated channels can be combined.

Methods

In this study, multi-channel AMFD was measured in CI subjects using a 3-alternative forced-choice, non-adaptive procedure (“which interval is different?”). For the reference stimulus, the reference AM (100 Hz) was delivered to all 3 channels. For the probe stimulus, the target AM (101, 102, 104, 108, 116, 132, 164, 228, or 256 Hz) was delivered to 1 of 3 channels, and the reference AM (100 Hz) delivered to the other 2 channels. The spacing between electrodes was varied to be wide or narrow to test different degrees of channel interaction.

Results

Results showed that CI subjects were highly sensitive to interactions between the reference and target envelopes. However, performance was non-monotonic as a function of target AM frequency. For the wide spacing, there was significantly less envelope interaction when the target AM was delivered to the basal channel. For the narrow spacing, there was no effect of target AM channel. The present data were also compared to a related previous study in which the target AM was delivered to a single channel or to all 3 channels. AMFD was much better with multiple than with single channels whether the target AM was delivered to 1 of 3 or to all 3 channels. For very small differences between the reference and target AM frequencies (2–4 Hz), there was often greater sensitivity when the target AM was delivered to 1 of 3 channels versus all 3 channels, especially for narrowly spaced electrodes.

Conclusions

Besides the increased loudness, the present results also suggest that multiple envelope representations may contribute to the multi-channel advantage observed in previous AMFD studies. The different patterns of results for the wide and narrow spacing suggest a peripheral contribution to multi-channel temporal processing. Because the effect of target AM frequency was non-monotonic in this study, adaptive procedures may not be suitable to measure AMFD thresholds with interfering envelopes. Envelope interactions among multiple channels may be quite complex, depending on the envelope information presented to each channel and the relative independence of the stimulated channels.

Single- and multi-channel modulation detection in cochlear implant users

Single-channel modulation detection thresholds (MDTs) have been shown to predict cochlear implant (CI) users' speech performance. However, little is known about multi-channel modulation sensitivity. Two factors likely contribute to multichannel modulation sensitivity: multichannel loudness summation and the across-site variance in single-channel MDTs. In this study, single- and multi-channel MDTs were measured in 9 CI users at relatively low and high presentation levels and modulation frequencies. Single-channel MDTs were measured at widely spaced electrode locations, and these same channels were used for the multichannel stimuli. Multichannel MDTs were measured twice, with and without adjustment for multichannel loudness summation (i.e., at the same loudness as for the single-channel MDTs or louder). Results showed that the effect of presentation level and modulation frequency were similar for single- and multi-channel MDTs. Multichannel MDTs were significantly poorer than single-channel MDTs when the current levels of the multichannel stimuli were reduced to match the loudness of the single-channel stimuli. This suggests that, at equal loudness, single-channel measures may over-estimate CI users' multichannel modulation sensitivity. At equal loudness, there was no significant correlation between the amount of multichannel loudness summation and the deficit in multichannel MDTs, relative to the average single-channel MDT. With no loudness compensation, multichannel MDTs were significantly better than the best single-channel MDT. The across-site variance in single-channel MDTs varied substantially across subjects. However, the across-site variance was not correlated with the multichannel advantage over the best single channel. This suggests that CI listeners combined envelope information across channels instead of attending to the best channel.