The effect of Gaussian noise on the threshold, dynamic range, and loudness of analogue cochlear implant stimuli

The deliberate addition of Gaussian noise to cochlear implant signals has previously been proposed to enhance the time coding of signals by the cochlear nerve. Potentially, the addition of an inaudible level of noise could also have secondary benefits: it could lower the threshold to the information-bearing signal, and by desynchronization of nerve discharges, it could increase the level at which the information-bearing signal becomes uncomfortable. Both these effects would lead to an increased dynamic range, which might be expected to enhance speech comprehension and make the choice of cochlear implant compression parameters less critical (as with a wider dynamic range, small changes in the parameters would have less effect on loudness). The hypothesized secondary effects were investigated with eight users of the Clarion cochlear implant; the stimulation was analogue and monopolar. For presentations in noise, noise at 95% of the threshold level was applied simultaneously and independently to all the electrodes. The noise was found in two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) experiments to decrease the threshold to sinusoidal stimuli (100 Hz, 1 kHz, 5 kHz) by about 2.0 dB and increase the dynamic range by 0.7 dB. Furthermore, in 2AFC loudness balance experiments, noise was found to decrease the loudness of moderate to intense stimuli. This suggests that loudness is partially coded by the degree of phase-locking of cochlear nerve fibers. The overall gain in dynamic range was modest, and more complex noise strategies, for example, using inhibition between the noise sources, may be required to get a clinically useful benefit. © 2006 Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

Auditory stream segregation in cochlear implant listeners:measures based on temporal discrimination and interleaved melody recognition

The evidence that cochlear implant listeners routinely experience stream segregation is limited and equivocal. Streaming in these listeners was explored using tone sequences matched to the center frequencies of the implant’s 22 electrodes. Experiment 1 measured temporal discrimination for short (ABA triplet) and longer (12 AB cycles) sequences (tone/silence durations = 60/40 ms). Tone A stimulated electrode 11; tone B stimulated one of 14 electrodes. On each trial, one sequence remained isochronous, and tone B was delayed in the other; listeners had to identify the anisochronous interval. The delay was introduced in the second half of the longer sequences. Prior build-up of streaming should cause thresholds to rise more steeply with increasing electrode separation, but no interaction with sequence length was found. Experiment 2 required listeners to identify which of two target sequences was present when interleaved with distractors (tone/silence durations = 120/80 ms). Accuracy was high for isolated targets, but most listeners performed near chance when loudness-matched distractors were added, even when remote from the target. Only a substantial reduction in distractor level improved performance, and this effect did not interact with target-distractor separation. These results indicate that implantees often do not achieve stream segregation, even in relatively unchallenging tasks.

Across-formant integration and speech intelligibility:effects of acoustic source properties in the presence and absence of a contralateral interferer

The role of source properties in across-formant integration was explored using three-formant (F1+F2+F3) analogues of natural sentences (targets). In experiment 1, F1+F3 were harmonic analogues (H1+H3) generated using a monotonous buzz source and second-order resonators; in experiment 2, F1+F3 were tonal analogues (T1+T3). F2 could take either form (H2 or T2). Target formants were always presented monaurally; the receiving ear was assigned randomly on each trial. In some conditions, only the target was present; in others, a competitor for F2 (F2C) was presented contralaterally. Buzz-excited or tonal competitors were created using the time-reversed frequency and amplitude contours of F2. Listeners must reject F2C to optimize keyword recognition. Whether or not a competitor was present, there was no effect of source mismatch between F1+F3 and F2. The impact of adding F2C was modest when it was tonal but large when it was harmonic, irrespective of whether F2C matched F1+F3. This pattern was maintained when harmonic and tonal counterparts were loudness-matched (experiment 3). Source type and competition, rather than acoustic similarity, governed the phonetic contribution of a formant. Contrary to earlier research using dichotic targets, requiring across-ear integration to optimize intelligibility, H2C was an equally effective informational masker for H2 as for T2.