The Sound Quality of Cochlear Implants: Studies with Single-sided Deaf Patients

Michael Dorman, Sarah Cook Natale, Austin M. Butts, Daniel M. Zeitler, Matthew L. Carlson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The goal of the present study was to assess the sound quality of a cochlear implant for single-sided deaf (SSD) patients fit with a cochlear implant (CI). Background: One of the fundamental, unanswered questions in CI research is "what does an implant sound like?" Conventional CI patients must use the memory of a clean signal, often decades old, to judge the sound quality of their CIs. In contrast, SSD-CI patients can rate the similarity of a clean signal presented to the CI ear and candidate, CI-like signals presented to the ear with normal hearing. Methods: For Experiment 1 four types of stimuli were created for presentation to the normal hearing ear: noise vocoded signals, sine vocoded signals, frequency shifted, sine vocoded signals and band-pass filtered, natural speech signals. Listeners rated the similarity of these signals to unmodified signals sent to the CI on a scale of 0 to 10 with 10 being a complete match to the CI signal. For Experiment 2 multitrack signal mixing was used to create natural speech signals that varied along multiple dimensions. Results: In Experiment 1 for eight adult SSD-CI listeners, the best median similarity rating to the sound of the CI for noise vocoded signals was 1.9; for sine vocoded signals 2.9; for frequency upshifted signals, 1.9; and for band pass filtered signals, 5.5. In Experiment 2 for three young listeners, combinations of band pass filtering and spectral smearing lead to ratings of 10. Conclusion: The sound quality of noise and sine vocoders does not generally correspond to the sound quality of cochlear implants fit to SSD patients. Our preliminary conclusion is that natural speech signals that have been muffled to one degree or another by band pass filtering and/or spectral smearing provide a close, but incomplete, match to CI sound quality for some patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e268-e273
JournalOtology and Neurotology
Volume38
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2017

Fingerprint

Cochlear Implants
Ear
Noise
Hearing

Keywords

  • Cochlear implants
  • Single-sided deaf
  • Sound quality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Sensory Systems
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Dorman, M., Natale, S. C., Butts, A. M., Zeitler, D. M., & Carlson, M. L. (2017). The Sound Quality of Cochlear Implants: Studies with Single-sided Deaf Patients. Otology and Neurotology, 38(8), e268-e273. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001449

The Sound Quality of Cochlear Implants : Studies with Single-sided Deaf Patients. / Dorman, Michael; Natale, Sarah Cook; Butts, Austin M.; Zeitler, Daniel M.; Carlson, Matthew L.

In: Otology and Neurotology, Vol. 38, No. 8, 01.09.2017, p. e268-e273.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dorman, M, Natale, SC, Butts, AM, Zeitler, DM & Carlson, ML 2017, 'The Sound Quality of Cochlear Implants: Studies with Single-sided Deaf Patients', Otology and Neurotology, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. e268-e273. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001449
Dorman, Michael ; Natale, Sarah Cook ; Butts, Austin M. ; Zeitler, Daniel M. ; Carlson, Matthew L. / The Sound Quality of Cochlear Implants : Studies with Single-sided Deaf Patients. In: Otology and Neurotology. 2017 ; Vol. 38, No. 8. pp. e268-e273.
@article{86098a8f449f4e088fdbb6e745561199,
title = "The Sound Quality of Cochlear Implants: Studies with Single-sided Deaf Patients",
abstract = "Objective: The goal of the present study was to assess the sound quality of a cochlear implant for single-sided deaf (SSD) patients fit with a cochlear implant (CI). Background: One of the fundamental, unanswered questions in CI research is {"}what does an implant sound like?{"} Conventional CI patients must use the memory of a clean signal, often decades old, to judge the sound quality of their CIs. In contrast, SSD-CI patients can rate the similarity of a clean signal presented to the CI ear and candidate, CI-like signals presented to the ear with normal hearing. Methods: For Experiment 1 four types of stimuli were created for presentation to the normal hearing ear: noise vocoded signals, sine vocoded signals, frequency shifted, sine vocoded signals and band-pass filtered, natural speech signals. Listeners rated the similarity of these signals to unmodified signals sent to the CI on a scale of 0 to 10 with 10 being a complete match to the CI signal. For Experiment 2 multitrack signal mixing was used to create natural speech signals that varied along multiple dimensions. Results: In Experiment 1 for eight adult SSD-CI listeners, the best median similarity rating to the sound of the CI for noise vocoded signals was 1.9; for sine vocoded signals 2.9; for frequency upshifted signals, 1.9; and for band pass filtered signals, 5.5. In Experiment 2 for three young listeners, combinations of band pass filtering and spectral smearing lead to ratings of 10. Conclusion: The sound quality of noise and sine vocoders does not generally correspond to the sound quality of cochlear implants fit to SSD patients. Our preliminary conclusion is that natural speech signals that have been muffled to one degree or another by band pass filtering and/or spectral smearing provide a close, but incomplete, match to CI sound quality for some patients.",
keywords = "Cochlear implants, Single-sided deaf, Sound quality",
author = "Michael Dorman and Natale, {Sarah Cook} and Butts, {Austin M.} and Zeitler, {Daniel M.} and Carlson, {Matthew L.}",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/MAO.0000000000001449",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "e268--e273",
journal = "Otology and Neurotology",
issn = "1531-7129",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Sound Quality of Cochlear Implants

T2 - Studies with Single-sided Deaf Patients

AU - Dorman, Michael

AU - Natale, Sarah Cook

AU - Butts, Austin M.

AU - Zeitler, Daniel M.

AU - Carlson, Matthew L.

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - Objective: The goal of the present study was to assess the sound quality of a cochlear implant for single-sided deaf (SSD) patients fit with a cochlear implant (CI). Background: One of the fundamental, unanswered questions in CI research is "what does an implant sound like?" Conventional CI patients must use the memory of a clean signal, often decades old, to judge the sound quality of their CIs. In contrast, SSD-CI patients can rate the similarity of a clean signal presented to the CI ear and candidate, CI-like signals presented to the ear with normal hearing. Methods: For Experiment 1 four types of stimuli were created for presentation to the normal hearing ear: noise vocoded signals, sine vocoded signals, frequency shifted, sine vocoded signals and band-pass filtered, natural speech signals. Listeners rated the similarity of these signals to unmodified signals sent to the CI on a scale of 0 to 10 with 10 being a complete match to the CI signal. For Experiment 2 multitrack signal mixing was used to create natural speech signals that varied along multiple dimensions. Results: In Experiment 1 for eight adult SSD-CI listeners, the best median similarity rating to the sound of the CI for noise vocoded signals was 1.9; for sine vocoded signals 2.9; for frequency upshifted signals, 1.9; and for band pass filtered signals, 5.5. In Experiment 2 for three young listeners, combinations of band pass filtering and spectral smearing lead to ratings of 10. Conclusion: The sound quality of noise and sine vocoders does not generally correspond to the sound quality of cochlear implants fit to SSD patients. Our preliminary conclusion is that natural speech signals that have been muffled to one degree or another by band pass filtering and/or spectral smearing provide a close, but incomplete, match to CI sound quality for some patients.

AB - Objective: The goal of the present study was to assess the sound quality of a cochlear implant for single-sided deaf (SSD) patients fit with a cochlear implant (CI). Background: One of the fundamental, unanswered questions in CI research is "what does an implant sound like?" Conventional CI patients must use the memory of a clean signal, often decades old, to judge the sound quality of their CIs. In contrast, SSD-CI patients can rate the similarity of a clean signal presented to the CI ear and candidate, CI-like signals presented to the ear with normal hearing. Methods: For Experiment 1 four types of stimuli were created for presentation to the normal hearing ear: noise vocoded signals, sine vocoded signals, frequency shifted, sine vocoded signals and band-pass filtered, natural speech signals. Listeners rated the similarity of these signals to unmodified signals sent to the CI on a scale of 0 to 10 with 10 being a complete match to the CI signal. For Experiment 2 multitrack signal mixing was used to create natural speech signals that varied along multiple dimensions. Results: In Experiment 1 for eight adult SSD-CI listeners, the best median similarity rating to the sound of the CI for noise vocoded signals was 1.9; for sine vocoded signals 2.9; for frequency upshifted signals, 1.9; and for band pass filtered signals, 5.5. In Experiment 2 for three young listeners, combinations of band pass filtering and spectral smearing lead to ratings of 10. Conclusion: The sound quality of noise and sine vocoders does not generally correspond to the sound quality of cochlear implants fit to SSD patients. Our preliminary conclusion is that natural speech signals that have been muffled to one degree or another by band pass filtering and/or spectral smearing provide a close, but incomplete, match to CI sound quality for some patients.

KW - Cochlear implants

KW - Single-sided deaf

KW - Sound quality

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027561218&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85027561218&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001449

DO - 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001449

M3 - Article

C2 - 28806337

AN - SCOPUS:85027561218

VL - 38

SP - e268-e273

JO - Otology and Neurotology

JF - Otology and Neurotology

SN - 1531-7129

IS - 8

ER -