Effects of spectral smearing on speech understanding and masking release in simulated bilateral cochlear implants

Channel crosstalk detected using ECAP measurements is associated with poorer speech perception in cochlear implant users

The number and independence of channels in cochlear implants (CI) has long been considered to influence speech recognition, particularly in competing background noise. Measures of channel independence have been obtained via psychophysical and objective means, relying on interactions between probe and masker signals delivered on different channels. In the current study, electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAP) obtained from 32 Nucleus CI recipients tested at one basal and one apical position were performed using a standard spread-of-excitation procedure. An alternative analysis method, comparing masked responses only, revealed distant maskers as effective or more effective than same-electrode maskers in 13/32 cases. This appears to indicate substantial crosstalk between channels, covering up to nine intracochlear electrodes in one subject. Subjects with atypical responses and no other limiting factors had significantly poorer sentence recognition in noise compared with those with no detected peripheral or cognitive limiting factors. We propose that channel crosstalk detected via ECAPs may be a biomarker for poor or patchy neural survival that leads to poorer speech perception in CI recipients.

The relationship between channel interaction, electrode placement, and speech perception in adult cochlear implant users

This study (1) characterized the effects of channel interaction using spectral blurring, (2) evaluated an image-guided electrode selection (IGES) method aiming to reduce channel interaction, and (3) investigated the impact of electrode placement factors on the change in performance by condition. Twelve adult MED-EL (Innsbruck, Austria) cochlear implant recipients participated. Performance was compared across six conditions: baseline (no blurring), all blurred, apical blurred, middle blurred, basal blurred, and IGES. Electrode placement information was calculated from post-insertion computerized tomography (CT) imaging. Each condition tested measures of speech recognition and subjective ratings. Results showed poorer performance when spectral blurring was applied to all channels compared to baseline, suggesting an increase in channel interaction was achieved. Vowel recognition was more sensitive to apical and middle blurring while consonant recognition was more sensitive to basal blurring, indicating that phoneme identification may be useful for assessing channel interaction clinically. IGES did not significantly improve group performance, and electrode placement factors did not impact results. However, participants who were more affected by spectral blurring tended to benefit more from IGES. These findings indicate that spectral blurring can help identify areas most affected by channel interaction to help optimize electrode selection.

How to vocode: Using channel vocoders for cochlear-implant research

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.