Comparison of Performance for Cochlear-Implant Listeners Using Audio Processing Strategies Based on Short-Time Fast Fourier Transform or Spectral Feature Extraction.

objectivesWe compared sound quality and performance for a conventional cochlear-implant (CI) audio processing strategy based on short-time fast-Fourier transform (Crystalis) and an experimental strategy based on spectral feature extraction (SFE). In the latter, the more salient spectral features (acoustic events) were extracted and mapped into the CI stimulation electrodes. We hypothesized that (1) SFE would be superior to Crystalis because it can encode acoustic spectral features without the constraints imposed by the short-time fast-Fourier transform bin width, and (2) the potential benefit of SFE would be greater for CI users who have less neural cross-channel interactions.

designTo examine the first hypothesis, 6 users of Oticon Medical Digisonic SP CIs were tested in a double-blind design with the SFE and Crystalis strategies on various aspects: word recognition in quiet, speech-in-noise reception threshold (SRT), consonant discrimination in quiet, listening effort, melody contour identification (MCI), and subjective sound quality. Word recognition and SRTs were measured on the first and last day of testing (4 to 5 days apart) to assess potential learning and/or acclimatization effects. Other tests were run once between the first and last testing day. Listening effort was assessed by measuring pupil dilation. MCI involved identifying a five-tone contour among five possible contours. Sound quality was assessed subjectively using the multiple stimulus with hidden reference and anchor (MUSHRA) paradigm for sentences, music, and ambient sounds. To examine the second hypothesis, cross-channel interaction was assessed behaviorally using forward masking.

resultsWord recognition was similar for the two strategies on the first day of testing and improved for both strategies on the last day of testing, with Crystalis improving significantly more. SRTs were worse with SFE than Crystalis on the first day of testing but became comparable on the last day of testing. Consonant discrimination scores were higher for Crystalis than for the SFE strategy. MCI scores and listening effort were not substantially different across strategies. Subjective sound quality scores were lower for the SFE than for the Crystalis strategy. The difference in performance with SFE and Crystalis was greater for CI users with higher channel interaction.

conclusionsCI-user performance was similar with the SFE and Crystalis strategies. Longer acclimatization times may be required to reveal the full potential of the SFE strategy.