Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:30:18.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cochlear implant patients' speech understanding in background noise: effect of mismatch between electrode assigned frequencies and perceived pitch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2010

W Di Nardo ,
A Scorpecci ,
S Giannantonio ,
F Cianfrone ,
C Parrilla  and
G Paludetti
W Di Nardo
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
A Scorpecci*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
S Giannantonio
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
F Cianfrone
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
C Parrilla
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
G Paludetti
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Alessandro Scorpecci, Institute of Otorhinolaryngology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, ‘A Gemelli’ University Hospital, Largo Gemelli 8, 00168 Rome, Italy. Fax: +39 06 3051194 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the electrode pitch function in a series of adults with postlingually implanted cochlear implants and with contralateral residual hearing, in order to investigate the correlation between the degree of frequency map mismatch and the subjects' speech understanding in quiet and noisy conditions.

Design:

Case series.

Subjects:

Seven postlingually deafened adults with cochlear implants, all with detectable contralateral residual hearing. Subjects' electrode pitch function was assessed by means of a pitch-matching test, in which they were asked to match an acoustic pitch (pure tones delivered to the non-implanted ear by an audiometer) to a perceived ‘pitch’ elicited by stimulation of the cochlear implant electrodes. A mismatch score was calculated for each subject. Speech recognition was tested using lists of sentences presented in quiet conditions and at +10, 0 and 5 dB HL signal-to-noise ratio levels (i.e. noise 10 dB HL lower than signal, noise as loud as signal and noise 5 dB HL higher than signal, respectively). Correlations were assessed using a linear regression model, with significance set at p < 0.05.

Results:

All patients presented some degree of mismatch between the acoustic frequencies assigned to their implant electrodes and the pitch elicited by stimulation of the same electrode, with high between-individual variability. A significant correlation (p < 0.005) was found between mismatch and speech recognition scores at +10 and 0 dB HL signal-to-noise ratio levels (r2 = 0.91 and 0.89, respectively).

Conclusion:

The mismatch between frequencies allocated to electrodes and the pitch perceived on stimulation of the same electrodes could partially account for our subjects' difficulties with speech understanding in noisy conditions. We suggest that these subjects could benefit from mismatch correction, through a procedure allowing individualised reallocation of frequency bands to electrodes.

Keywords

Implants And ProsthesesCochleaSensorineural Hearing LossSpeech Discrimination
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 124 , Issue 8 , August 2010 , pp. 828 - 834
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 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 Acous Soc Am 2001;110:1150–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Friszt, JB, Koch, DB, Downing, M, Litvak, L. Current steering creates additional pitch percepts in adult cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol 2007;28:629–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Kong, Y, Cruz, R, Jones, J, Zeng, F. Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. Ear Hear 2004;25:173–85CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 McDermott, H. Music perception with cochlear implants: a review. Trends Amplif 2004;8:49–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5 Wouters, J, Vanden Berghe, J. Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implantees with a two microphone monaural adaptive noise reduction system. Ear Hear 2001;22:420–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6 Spriet, A, Van Deun, L, Eftaxiabis, K, Laneau, J, Moonen, M, Van Dijk, B et al. Speech understanding in background noise with the 2-microphone adaptive beamformer BEAM in the Nucleus Feeedom Cochlear Implant System. Ear Hear 2007;28:62–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Nelson, P, Jin, SH. Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;115:2286–94CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8 Gantz, B, Turner, C, Gfeller, K, Lowder, M. Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing. Laryngoscope 2005;115:796–802CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Qin, MK, Oxenham, AJ. Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2006;119:2417–26CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10 Dorman, MF, Loizou, PC, Rainey, D. Simulating the effect of cochlear implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am 1997;102:2993–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Shannon, RV, Zeng, FG, Wygonski, J. Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:2467–76CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Fu, QJ, Shannon, RV. Effects of electrode location and spacing on phoneme recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. Ear Hear 1999;20:321–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13 Fu, QJ, Shannon, RV. Effects of electrode configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. Ear Hear 1999;20:332–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Fu, QJ, Shannon, RV. Frequency mapping in cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2002;23:339–49CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;20:729–34Google ScholarPubMed
16 Greenwood, DD. Critical bandwidth and the frequency coordinates of the basilar membrane. J Acoust Soc Am 1961;33:1344–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Greenwood, DD. A cochlear frequency-position function for several species – 29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am 1990;87:2592–605CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18 Baumann, U, Nobbe, A. The cochlear implant electrode-pitch function. Hear Res 2006;13:34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Di Nardo, W, Cantore, I, Cianfrone, F, Melillo, P, Fetoni, AR, Paludetti, G. Differences between electrode-assigned frequencies and cochlear implant recipient pitch perception. Acta Otolaryngol 2007;127:370–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Dorman, MF, Spahr, T, Gifford, R, Loiselle, L, McKarns, S, Holden, T et al. An electric frequency-to-place map for a cochlear implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2007;8:234–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21 Burdo, S, Cucinotta, L, Miccoli, MT, Oneto, L, De Dionigi, M. Sentences in Italian with disyllabic words by Burdo and Orsi. In: Fondazione Audiologica Varese Onlus eds. Speech Audiometry [in Italian]. Varese: Varese Onlus Audiology Foundation, 2007;5–9Google Scholar
22 Sridhar, D, Stakhovskaya, O, Leake, PA. A frequency-position function for the human cochlear spiral ganglion. Audiol Neurootol 2006;11:16–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23 Kawano, A, Seldon, HL, Clark, GM. Computer-aided three-dimensional reconstruction in human cochlear maps: measurement of the lengths of Organ of Corti, outer wall, inner wall, and Rosenthal's canal. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996;105:701–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Stickney, GS, Zeng, FG, Litovsky, R, Assmann, PF. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;116:1081–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25 Turner, CW, Gantz, BJ, Vidal, C, Behrens, A, Henry, BA. Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;115:1729–35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26 Gfeller, K, Turner, C, Oleson, J, Zhang, X, Gantz, B, Froman, R et al. Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise. Ear Hear 2007;28:412–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed