The sound sensation of apical electric stimulation in cochlear implant recipients with contralateral residual hearing

Diane S Lazard, Jeremy Marozeau, Hugh J McDermott, Diane S Lazard, Jeremy Marozeau, Hugh J McDermott

Abstract

Background: Studies using vocoders as acoustic simulators of cochlear implants have generally focused on simulation of speech understanding, gender recognition, or music appreciation. The aim of the present experiment was to study the auditory sensation perceived by cochlear implant (CI) recipients with steady electrical stimulation on the most-apical electrode.

Methodology/principal findings: Five unilateral CI users with contralateral residual hearing were asked to vary the parameters of an acoustic signal played to the non-implanted ear, in order to match its sensation to that of the electric stimulus. They also provided a rating of similarity between each acoustic sound they selected and the electric stimulus. On average across subjects, the sound rated as most similar was a complex signal with a concentration of energy around 523 Hz. This sound was inharmonic in 3 out of 5 subjects with a moderate, progressive increase in the spacing between the frequency components.

Conclusions/significance: For these subjects, the sound sensation created by steady electric stimulation on the most-apical electrode was neither a white noise nor a pure tone, but a complex signal with a progressive increase in the spacing between the frequency components in 3 out of 5 subjects. Knowing whether the inharmonic nature of the sound was related to the fact that the non-implanted ear was impaired has to be explored in single-sided deafened patients with a contralateral CI. These results may be used in the future to better understand peripheral and central auditory processing in relation to cochlear implants.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have the following conflicts: Cochlear France funded Diane Lazard’s plane ticket to Australia. Cochlear France did not fund any other part of the research project, and did not participate in any stage of the project. This does not alter the authors’ adherence to all the PLoS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

References

    1. Blamey PJ, Dowell RC, Tong YC, Clark GM. An acoustic model of a multiple-channel cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am. 1984;76:97–103.
    1. Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science. 1995;270:303–304.
    1. Loizou PC. Speech processing in vocoder-centric cochlear implants. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;64:109–143.
    1. McKay CM, Carlyon RP. Dual temporal pitch percepts from acoustic and electric amplitude-modulated pulse trains. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999;105:347–357.
    1. Deeks JM, Carlyon RP. Simulations of cochlear implant hearing using filtered harmonic complexes: implications for concurrent sound segregation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115:1736–1746.
    1. Dorman MF, Loizou PC. Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants. Am J Otol. 1997;18:S113–114.
    1. Laneau J, Moonen M, Wouters J. Factors affecting the use of noise-band vocoders as acoustic models for pitch perception in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119:491–506.
    1. Strydom T, Hanekom JJ. The performance of different synthesis signals in acoustic models of cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011;129:920–933.
    1. Carlyon RP, Macherey O, Frijns JH, Axon PR, Kalkman RK, et al. Pitch comparisons between electrical stimulation of a cochlear implant and acoustic stimuli presented to a normal-hearing contralateral ear. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2010;11:625–640.
    1. McDermott H, Sucher C, Simpson A. Electro-acoustic stimulation. Acoustic and electric pitch comparisons. Audiol Neurootol. 2009;14:2–7.
    1. Reiss LA, Turner CW, Erenberg SR, Gantz BJ. Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007;8:241–257.
    1. Dorman MF, Spahr T, Gifford R, Loiselle L, McKarns S, et al. An electric frequency-to-place map for a cochlear implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007;8:234–240.
    1. Blamey PJ, Dooley GJ, Parisi ES, Clark GM. Pitch comparisons of acoustically and electrically evoked auditory sensations. Hear Res. 1996;99:139–150.
    1. Boex C, Baud L, Cosendai G, Sigrist A, Kos MI, et al. Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2006;7:110–124.
    1. Eddington DK, Dobelle WH, Brackmann DE, Mladejovsky MG, Parkin JL. Auditory prostheses research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1978;87:1–39.
    1. Fu QJ, Chinchilla S, Nogaki G, Galvin JJ, 3rd. Voice gender identification by cochlear implant users: the role of spectral and temporal resolution. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;118:1711–1718.
    1. Massida Z, Belin P, James C, Rouger J, Fraysse B, et al. Voice discrimination in cochlear-implanted deaf subjects. Hear Res. 2010;275:120–129.
    1. Leal MC, Shin YJ, Laborde ML, Calmels MN, Verges S, et al. Music perception in adult cochlear implant recipients. Acta Otolaryngol. 2003;123:826–835.
    1. McDermott HJ. Music perception with cochlear implants: a review. Trends Amplif. 2004;8:49–82.
    1. Gfeller K, Christ A, Knutson JF, Witt S, Murray KT, et al. Musical backgrounds, listening habits, and aesthetic enjoyment of adult cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000;11:390–406.
    1. Pressnitzer D, Bestel J, Fraysse B. Music to electric ears: pitch and timbre perception by cochlear implant patients. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2005;1060:343–345.
    1. Kovacic D, Balaban E. Voice gender perception by cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;126:762–775.
    1. Byrne D, Dillon H. The National Acoustic Laboratories’ (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear. 1986;7:257–265.
    1. Green T, Faulkner A, Rosen S. Frequency selectivity of contralateral residual acoustic hearing in bimodal cochlear implant users, and limitations on the ability to match the pitch of electric and acoustic stimuli. Int J Audiol. 2011.
    1. Moore B. Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Damage. New York: Oxford University Press. 1995.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj