Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies.
Two related studies investigated the relationship between place-pitch sensitivity and consonant recognition in cochlear implant listeners using the Nucleus MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. Average place-pitch sensitivity across the electrode array was evaluated as a function of electrode separation, using a psychophysical electrode pitch-ranking task. Consonant recognition was assessed by analyzing error matrices obtained with a standard consonant confusion procedure to obtain relative transmitted information (RTI) measures for three features: stimulus (RTI stim), envelope (RTI env[plc]), and place-of-articulation (RTI plc[env]). The first experiment evaluated consonant recognition performance with MPEAK and SPEAK in the same subjects. Subjects were experienced users of the MPEAK strategy who used the SPEAK strategy on a daily basis for one month and were tested with both processors. It was hypothesized that subjects with good place-pitch sensitivity would demonstrate better consonant place-cue perception with SPEAK than with MPEAK, by virtue of their ability to make use of SPEAK's enhanced representation of spectral speech cues. Surprisingly, all but one subject demonstrated poor consonant place-cue performance with both MPEAK and SPEAK even though most subjects demonstrated good or excellent place-pitch sensitivity. Consistent with this, no systematic relationship between place-pitch sensitivity and consonant place-cue performance was observed. Subjects' poor place-cue perception with SPEAK was subsequently attributed to the relatively short period of experience that they were given with the SPEAK strategy. The second study reexamined the relationship between place-pitch sensitivity and consonant recognition in a group of experienced SPEAK users. For these subjects, a positive relationship was observed between place-pitch sensitivity and consonant place-cue performance, supporting the hypothesis that good place-pitch sensitivity facilitates subjects' use of spectral cues to consonant identity. A strong, linear relationship was also observed between measures of envelope- and place-cue extraction, with place-cue performance increasing as a constant proportion (approximately 0.8) of envelope-cue performance. To the extent that the envelope-cue measure reflects subjects' abilities to resolve amplitude fluctuations in the speech envelope, this finding suggests that both envelope- and place-cue perception depend strongly on subjects' envelope-processing abilities. Related to this, the data suggest that good place-cue perception depends both on envelope-processing abilities and place-pitch sensitivity, and that either factor may limit place-cue perception in a given cochlear implant listener. Data from both experiments indicate that subjects with small electric dynamic ranges (< 8 dB for 125-Hz, 205-microsecond/ph pulse trains) are more likely to demonstrate poor electrode pitch-ranking skills and poor consonant recognition performance than subjects with larger electric dynamic ranges.
Donaldson
G S
GS
Department of Otolaryngology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455, USA.
Nelson
D A
DA
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D019929:Cochlear Implantation; D004558:Electric Stimulation / Q000295:instrumentation; D004867:Equipment Design; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D010700:Phonetics; D010898:Pitch Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013067:Speech Perception / Q000502:physiology*