title: Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing.
abstract: The latest-generation cochlear implant devices provide many deaf patients with good speech recognition in quiet listening conditions. However, speech recognition deteriorates rapidly as the level of background noise increases. Previous studies have shown that, for cochlear implant users, the absence of fine spectro-temporal cues may contribute to poorer performance in noise, especially when the noise is dynamic (e.g., competing speaker or modulated noise). Here we report on sentence recognition by cochlear implant users and by normal-hearing subjects listening to an acoustic simulation of a cochlear implant, in the presence of steady or square-wave modulated speech-shaped noise. Implant users were tested using their everyday, clinically assigned speech processors. In the acoustic simulation, normal-hearing listeners were tested for different degrees of spectral resolution (16, eight, or four channels) and spectral smearing (carrier filter slopes of -24 or -6 dB/octave). For modulated noise, normal-hearing listeners experienced significant release from masking when the original, unprocessed speech was presented (which preserved the spectro-temporal fine structure), while cochlear implant users experienced no release from masking. As the spectral resolution was reduced, normal-hearing listeners' release from masking gradually diminished. Release from masking was further reduced as the degree of spectral smearing increased. Interestingly, the mean speech recognition thresholds of implant users were very close to those of normal-hearing subjects listening to four-channel spectrally smeared noise-band speech. Also, the best cochlear implant listeners performed like normal-hearing subjects listening to eight- to 16-channel spectrally smeared noise-band speech. These findings suggest that implant users' susceptibility to noise may be caused by the reduced spectral resolution and the high degree of spectral smearing associated with channel interaction. Efforts to improve the effective number of spectral channels as well as reduce channel interactions may improve implant performance in noise, especially for temporally modulated noise.
authors.affiliation: Department of Auditory Implants and Perception, House Ear Institute, 2100 West Third Street, Los Angeles, CA 90057, USA. qfu@hei.org
authors.forename: Qian-Jie
authors.initials: QJ
authors.lastname: Fu
authors.forename: Geraldine
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Nogaki
mesh_terms: D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001299:Audiometry; D003054:Cochlear Implants; D003638:Deafness / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D009622:Noise; D010470:Perceptual Masking; D013067:Speech Perception
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998 Jun;41(3):549-63
references.pmid: 9638921
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1994 Apr;95(4):2277-80
references.pmid: 8201124
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1990 Oct;88(4):1725-36
references.pmid: 2262629
references.citation: ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1996 May-Jun;58(3):127-35
references.pmid: 8797215
references.citation: Acta Otolaryngol. 1987 Nov-Dec;104(5-6):439-46
references.pmid: 3434265
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1992 May;91(5):2872-80
references.pmid: 1629480
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Dec;104(6):3586-96
references.pmid: 9857517
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Feb;113(2):961-8
references.pmid: 12597189
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1994 Feb;95(2):1085-99
references.pmid: 8132902
references.citation: Ear Hear. 1992 Aug;13(4):263-71
references.pmid: 1397769
references.citation: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1995 Sep;166:303-6
references.pmid: 7668681
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1991 Dec;90(6):3028-35
references.pmid: 1787242
references.citation: J Speech Hear Res. 1995 Feb;38(1):222-33
references.pmid: 7731213
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Jul;114(1):446-54
references.pmid: 12880055
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1993 Mar;93(3):1547-52
references.pmid: 8473608
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1996 Sep;100(3):1807-18
references.pmid: 8817914
references.citation: J Speech Hear Res. 1986 Jun;29(2):146-54
references.pmid: 3724108
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1987 Sep;82(3):874-85
references.pmid: 3655121
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 May;115(5 Pt 1):2286-94
references.pmid: 15139640
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1994 Jan;95(1):518-29
references.pmid: 8120263
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1997 Jul;102(1):603-15
references.pmid: 9228821
references.citation: J Speech Hear Res. 1992 Dec;35(6):1410-21
references.pmid: 1494284
references.citation: Am J Otol. 1994 Nov;15 Suppl 2:15-27
references.pmid: 8572106