Comparative evaluation of cochlear implant coding strate- gies via a model of the human auditory speech processing

Authors

  • Tamas Harczos Fraunhofer Institute for Digital Media Technology IDMT, Ilmenau, Germany; Institute for Media Technology, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Ilmenau University of Technology, Germany
  • Stefan Fredelake Medical Physics, Institute of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Science, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Germany
  • Volker Hohmann Medical Physics, Institute of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Science, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Germany
  • Birger Kollmeier Medical Physics, Institute of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Science, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Germany

Abstract

Traditional cochlear implant (CI) coding strategies present some informa- tion about the waveform or spectral features of the speech signal to the electrodes. However, neither of these approaches takes the cochlear travel- ing wave or the auditory nerve cell response into account, though these are given in acoustic hearing. Therefore, a new CI coding strategy based on an auditory model including the above mentioned properties of the healthy cochlea was evaluated and compared with an n-of-m-coding strategy, in which n electrodes out of m possible electrodes are stimulated in each stimulation cycle. The selection of the n electrodes is based on the n highest spectral maxima of the momentary signal. Simulated electrical output of both CI coding strategies served as input to a model of the electrically stimulated auditory system, which consisted of an auditory nerve cell population. The nerve cells generated delta pulses as action potentials in dependence on the spatial and temporal properties of the electric field produced by the electric stimuli. This model is used to predict CI user performance in terms of speech intelligibility and pitch discrimination for both coding strategies. Furthermore, an additional model of normal hearing is presented, the output of which is compared to the neural representation resulting from the modeled CI stimulation. We will show under which circumstances and to what extent an auditory model based coding strategy may outperform a traditional CI speech coding algorithm.

References

Baumgarte, F. (1999). “A Physiological Ear Model for the Emulation of Masking” ORL, 61, 294–304.

Hamacher, V. (2004). Signalverarbeitungsmodelle des elektrisch stimulierten Ge- hörs. Aachener Beiträge zu Digitalen Nachrichtensystemen, Mainz, Aachen, Germany.

Harczos, T., Chilian, A., and Husar, P. (2011). “SAM: a novel cochlear implant speech coding strategy based on an active cochlea model” in prep..

Hey, M., Hocke, T., Braun, A., Scholz, G., Brademann, G., and Müller-Deile, J. (2010). “Erhebung von Normativen Daten für den Oldenburger Satztest bei CI- Patienten” in Proc. 13. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Audiologie on CD-ROM.

Jürgens, T., Fredelake, S., Meyer, R., Kollmeier, B., and Brand, T. (2010). “Chal- lenging the Speech Intelligibility Index: Macroscopic vs. Microscopic Predic- tion of Sentence Recognition in Normal and Hearing-impaired Listeners,” in Proc. Interspeech, Makuhari, Japan, 2478–2481.

Shepherd, R.K., Roberts, L.A., and Paolini, A.G. (2004). “Long-term sensorineural hearing loss induces functional changes in the rat auditory nerve” Eur. J. Neurosci., 20, 3131–3140.

Sumner, C. J., Lopez-Poveda, E. A., O’Mard, L. P., and Meddis, R. (2002). “A re- vised model of the inner-hair cell and auditory nerve complex” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 111, 2178–2188.

Vandali, A. E., Sucher, C., Tsang, D. J., McKay, C. M., Chew, J. W. D., and McDermott, H. J. (2005). “Pitch ranking ability of cochlear implant recipients: A comparison of sound-processing strategies” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 117, 3126– 3138.

Wagener, K., Brand, T., and Kollmeier, B. (1999). “Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache” Zeitschrift für Audiologie, 38, 4–95.

Additional Files

Published

2011-12-15

How to Cite

Harczos, T., Fredelake, S., Hohmann, V., & Kollmeier, B. (2011). Comparative evaluation of cochlear implant coding strate- gies via a model of the human auditory speech processing. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, 3, 331–338. Retrieved from https://proceedings.isaar.eu/index.php/isaarproc/article/view/2011-38

Issue

Vol. 3 (2011): Speech Perception and Auditory Disorders

Section

2011/3. Models of speech processing and perception

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright* and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

*From the 2017 issue onward. The Danavox Jubilee Foundation owns the copyright of all articles published in the 1969-2015 issues. However, authors are still allowed to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.