PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9670536

Modulation detection interference in cochlear implant subjects.

L M Richardson·P A Busby·G M Clark
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine whether detection thresholds for amplitude modulated signals on a single electrode were influenced by a masking modulation on a second electrode in cochlear implant users. Data were collected from four post-linguistically deafened subjects using the Cochlear Limited prosthesis. Investigated were the effects of the spatial separation between test and masker electrodes, 0 to 5 electrodes (0 to 3.75 mm), and the amount of masking modulation: 24%, 48%, 72%, and 96% above detection thresholds. Initially, modulation detection thresholds for stimulation on a single electrode without masking modulation were obtained for a set of six electrodes in the middle of the array. Modulation detection thresholds on a fixed test electrode were then obtained with unmodulated and modulated masking on a second electrode, which was one of the six electrodes in the initial study. In both studies, thresholds were measured for modulated pulse duration at the modulation frequencies of 10-200 Hz. In the first study, the shape of the detection thresholds as a function of modulation frequency, the temporal modulation transfer function, generally resembled a low-pass filter for two subjects. For the other two subjects, the functions were relatively flat across modulation frequencies. In the second study, unmodulated masking resulted in a small elevation in detection thresholds across electrodes. Modulation detection interference (MDI), the difference between thresholds for the modulated maskers and the unmodulated masker, was greater for larger amounts of masking modulation than for smaller amounts of masking modulation. For three of the four subjects, MDI was higher for smaller spatial separations between the two electrodes than for larger spatial separations suggesting that a portion of MDI may be due to overlap of neural excitation distributions produced by stimulation on two electrodes in close proximity on the array.

Explore related subjects

Auditory ThresholdCochlear ImplantationDeafnessHumansMiddle AgedPerceptual MaskingTime FactorsComparative StudyJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L M Richardson, P A Busby, G M Clark. 1998. Modulation detection interference in cochlear implant subjects.. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.423248

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2000

Effects of cerebrospinal fluid loss on hearing.

There is a direct communication between the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and the perilymph through the cochlear aqueduct (CA). Perilymph depletion due to perilymphatic fistulas has been demonstrated to influence inner ear function, with signs and symptoms similar in many ways to those of Meniere's disease. A leakage of CSF could also theoretically affect the inner ear. The present study was conducted to investigate whether hearing was affected in patients submitted to a leakage of CSF and, if so, to what extent, in which frequency range, which time course and incidence. The study comprised 126 patients who were exposed to different surgical procedures that involved puncture or incision of the dura, and a control group of 32 patients without such leakage. Hearing was reversibly affected only in patients with leak of CSF. The size of the hearing loss, the number of affected patients and the number of frequencies involved increased with increasing amount of CSF lost. Changes in the constituent cochlear fluids due to a transitory reduction in the CSF and the perilymphatic volume with a compensatory endolymphatic expansion may be responsible for the observed findings.

Auditory Threshold↗
PubMed2000

Four earplugs in search of a rating system.

OBJECTIVE: The performance of four insert earplugs was evaluated by determining the Noise Reduction Rating (NRR) and the Subject-Fit Noise Reduction Rating [NRR(SF)]. The NRR and NRR(SF) were calculated from real-ear attenuation at threshold (REAT) data collected using the experimenter-fit protocol described in the now-rescinded ANSI S3.19-1974 (American National Standards Institute, 1974) and the subject-fit protocol of the recently revised ANSI S12.6-1997 (American National Standards Institute, 1997) standards for REAT measurement. DESIGN: A comparison of the experimenter-fit and subject-fit REAT performance was conducted using four pools of subjects, one pool per protector. Each device was tested with at least 20 subjects, the minimum size necessary to estimate the NRR(SF) for an earplug. The REAT was measured with third-octave narrowband noise stimuli for center frequencies at 0.125, 0.25,0.5, 1, 2, 3.15, 4, 6.3, and 8 kHz. The REAT means and standard deviations were compared with the manufacturer data. RESULTS: This study showed that the NRR(SF) is typically lower than the NRR and that the NRR(SF) is not well-predicted by the NRR derating schemes recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. CONCLUSION: The difference between the present NRR on hearing protector labels and the NRR(SF) is sufficiently large and unpredictable enough to render the application of derating schemes meaningless even though these schemes attempt to account for the difference between the laboratory and real-world outcomes. The only way to provide a protector noise rating that is predictive of a real-world outcome is to retest the protector according to the subject-fit method of ANSI S12.6-1997 (American National Standards Institute, 1997).

Auditory Threshold↗
PubMed2000

Binaural sluggishness in the perception of tone sequences and speech in noise.

The binaural system is well-known for its sluggish response to changes in the interaural parameters to which it is sensitive. Theories of binaural unmasking have suggested that detection of signals in noise is mediated by detection of differences in interaural correlation. If these theories are correct, improvements in the intelligibility of speech in favorable binaural conditions is most likely mediated by spectro-temporal variations in interaural correlation of the stimulus which mirror the spectro-temporal amplitude modulations of the speech. However, binaural sluggishness should limit the temporal resolution of the representation of speech recovered by this means. The present study tested this prediction in two ways. First, listeners' masked discrimination thresholds for ascending vs descending pure-tone arpeggios were measured as a function of rate of frequency change in the NoSo and NoSpi binaural configurations. Three-tone arpeggios were presented repeatedly and continuously for 1.6 s, masked by a 1.6-s burst of noise. In a two-interval task, listeners determined the interval in which the arpeggios were ascending. The results showed a binaural advantage of 12-14 dB for NoSpi at 3.3 arpeggios per s (arp/s), which reduced to 3-5 dB at 10.4 arp/s. This outcome confirmed that the discrimination of spectro-temporal patterns in noise is susceptible to the effects of binaural sluggishness. Second, listeners' masked speech-reception thresholds were measured in speech-shaped noise using speech which was 1, 1.5, and 2 times the original articulation rate. The articulation rate was increased using a phase-vocoder technique which increased all the modulation frequencies in the speech without altering its pitch. Speech-reception thresholds were, on average, 5.2 dB lower for the NoSpi than for the NoSo configuration, at the original articulation rate. This binaural masking release was reduced to 2.8 dB when the articulation rate was doubled, but the most notable effect was a 6-8 dB increase in thresholds with articulation rate for both configurations. These results suggest that higher modulation frequencies in masked signals cannot be temporally resolved by the binaural system, but that the useful modulation frequencies in speech are sufficiently low (<5 Hz) that they are invulnerable to the effects of binaural sluggishness, even at elevated articulation rates.

Auditory Threshold↗