Search

Recent research and clinical experience with cochlear implants suggest that subjects' speech recognition with monopolar or broad bipolar stimulation might be equal to or better than that obtained with narrow bipolar stimulation or other spatially restricted electrode configurations. Furthermore, subjects often prefer the monopolar configurations. The mechanisms underlying these effects are not clear. Two hypotheses are (a) that broader configurations excite more neurons resulting in a more detailed and robust neural representation of the signal and (b) that broader configurations achieve a better spatial distribution of the excited neurons. In this study we compared the effects of electrode configuration and the effects of longitudinal placement and spacing of the active electrodes on speech recognition in human subjects. We used experimental processor maps consisting of 11 active electrodes in a 22-electrode scala tympani array. Narrow bipolar (BP), wide bipolar (BP + 6), and monopolar (MP2) configurations were tested with various locations of active electrodes. We tested basal, centered, and apical locations (with adjacent active electrodes) and spatially distributed locations (with every other electrode active) with electrode configuration held constant. Ten postlingually deafened adult human subjects with Nucleus prostheses were tested using the SPEAK processing strategy. The effects of electrode configuration and longitudinal place of stimulation on recognition of CNC phonemes and words in quiet and CUNY sentences in noise (+10 dB S/N) were similar. Both independent variables had large effects on speech recognition and there were interactions between these variables. These results suggest that the effects of electrode configuration on speech recognition might be due, in part, to differences among the various configurations in the spatial location of stimulation. Correlations of subjective judgments of sound quality with speech-recognition ability were moderate, suggesting that the mechanisms contributing to subjective quality and speech-recognition ability do not completely overlap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent research and clinical experience with cochlear implants suggest that subjects' speech recognition with monopolar or broad bipolar stimulation might be equal to or better than that obtained with narrow bipolar stimulation or other spatially restricted electrode configurations. Furthermore, subjects often prefer the monopolar configurations. The mechanisms underlying these effects are not clear. Two hypotheses are (a) that broader configurations excite more neurons resulting in a more detailed and robust neural representation of the signal and (b) that broader configurations achieve a better spatial distribution of the excited neurons. In this study we compared the effects of electrode configuration and the effects of longitudinal placement and spacing of the active electrodes on speech recognition in human subjects. We used experimental processor maps consisting of 11 active electrodes in a 22-electrode scala tympani array. Narrow bipolar (BP), wide bipolar (BP + 6), and monopolar (MP2) configurations were tested with various locations of active electrodes. We tested basal, centered, and apical locations (with adjacent active electrodes) and spatially distributed locations (with every other electrode active) with electrode configuration held constant. Ten postlingually deafened adult human subjects with Nucleus prostheses were tested using the SPEAK processing strategy. The effects of electrode configuration and longitudinal place of stimulation on recognition of CNC phonemes and words in quiet and CUNY sentences in noise (+10 dB S/N) were similar. Both independent variables had large effects on speech recognition and there were interactions between these variables. These results suggest that the effects of electrode configuration on speech recognition might be due, in part, to differences among the various configurations in the spatial location of stimulation. Correlations of subjective judgments of sound quality with speech-recognition ability were moderate, suggesting that the mechanisms contributing to subjective quality and speech-recognition ability do not completely overlap.

This study investigated the relationship between electrode discrimination and speech recognition in 11 postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects who were implanted with the Nucleus/Cochlear Corporation multichannel device. The discriminability of each electrode included in a subject's clinical map was measured using adaptive and fixed-level discrimination tasks. Considerable variability in electrode discriminability was observed across subjects. Two subjects could discriminate all electrodes, and discrimination performance by the remaining nine subjects varied from near perfect to very poor. In these nine subjects, the results obtained from the discrimination tasks were used to create a map that contained only discriminable electrodes, and subjects' performance on speech recognition tasks using this experimental map was measured. Four different speech recognition tests were administered: a nine-choice closed-set medial vowel recognition task, a 14-choice closed-set medial consonant recognition task, the NU6 Monosyllabic Words Test [T. W. Tillman and T. Carhart, Tech. Rep. No. SAM-TR-66-55, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas (1966)] scored for both words and phonemes correct, and the Central Institute for the Deaf (CID) Everyday Sentences test [H. Davis and S. R. Silverman, Hearing and Deafness (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1978)]. Seven of the nine subjects tested with the experimental map showed significant improvement on at least one speech recognition measure, even though the experimental map contained fewer electrodes than the original map. Three subjects' scores improved significantly on the CID Everyday Sentences test, three subjects' scores improved significantly on the NU6 Monosyllabic Words test, and five subjects' scores improved significantly on the NU6 Monosyllabic Words test scored for phonemes correct. None of the subjects' scores improved significantly on either the vowel or consonant tests. No significant correlation was observed between electrode discrimination ability and speech recognition scores or between electrode discrimination ability and improvement in speech recognition scores when programmed with the experimental map. The results of this study suggest that electrode discrimination tasks may be used to improve speech recognition of some cochlear implant subjects, and that each electrode site does not necessarily provide perceptually distinct information.

The goal of this study was to investigate the relationship between variation in electrode site of stimulation and the perceptual dimensions along which such stimuli vary. This information may allow more effective use of electrode place when encoding speech information. To achieve this goal, two procedures which measure pitch in subjects implanted with the Nucleus/Cochlear Corporation multichannel device were performed. Estimates of electrode discriminability that can be obtained from these procedures were compared to a more direct measure of electrode discriminability that was obtained in a previous study [Collins et al., Assoc. Res. Otolaryng. Abstracts, No. 642 (1994)]. In the first task, subjects performed a pitch ranking procedure similar to that used in previous studies [Townshend et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82, 106-115 (1987); Nelson et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 98, 1987-1999 (1995)]. Estimates of the pitch percept elicited by stimulation of each electrode as well as the discriminability of the electrodes were generated from the data using two different statistical analyses. In the second task, subjects performed a pitch scaling procedure similar to one used in a previous study [Busby et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 2658-2669 (1994)]. Again, two different statistical analyses were performed to generate estimates of the pitch percept corresponding to stimulation of each electrode and to generate estimates of electrode discriminability. In general, the estimates of the relationships between the pitch percepts obtained from the two procedures were not identical. In addition, the estimates of electrode discriminability were not equivalent to the electrode discrimination measures obtained from the same subjects during the previous study. Signal detection theory has been used to model the decision processes required by each of the procedures described above [e.g., Jesteadt and Bilger, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 55, 1266-1276 (1974)]. However, these models do not predict the differences that were observed between the data sets obtained during this study. An alternate model is proposed which may explain the data obtained from these subjects. This model is based on the assumption that the percept that is elicited by electrical stimulation of an electrode is multidimensional, as opposed to unidimensional in nature. Therefore, the perceived signal is more appropriately modeled using a multidimensional random vector, where each element of the vector represents the perceived value of one of the dimensions of the signal.