Advertisement

Cochlear Implants: Consequences of Microphone Aging on Speech Recognition

  • C. Berger-Vachon
  • P. A. Cucis
  • E. Truy
  • H. Thai Van
  • S. Gallego
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 125)

Abstract

Aging is a general phenomenon which affects everything and everybody in this world. Designed for the rehabilitation of profound deafness, cochlear implants (CI) do not escape to this general rule. One very insidious effect concerns the microphone as an ongoing drift occurs over the time. In this work we wish to assess the consequences of this evolution on speech recognition. In order to perform this task, a general population of CI users and NH subjects (using a CI simulator) participated to this study. They listened to French dissyllabic words and we recorded recognition percentages. Words were presented to the listeners in noise with a variable signal to noise ratio (SNR) and the percentages ranged from 0 to 100%. For the CI simulator, the drift was simulated from data coming from figures measured on regular hearing aids. This choice seems relevant as CIs and hearing aids use the same microphones. Also, the CI simulator we used, picked up the general principles of a vocoder to represent the classical coding strategies used in CIs (CIS-like and n-of-m). With CI users, the results were compared before and after cleaning the microphones; also, in a subgroup of CI users, we performed the replacement of the head filter protecting the microphone and the recognition percentages were compared with those coming from the standard “Brush and Blow” cleaning procedure. The results have been revisited and quantified after a curve fitting. The outcomes indicated that the CIS-like coding schemes were less sensitive to aging than the n-of-m strategies. Also, cleaning ameliorated the recognition performances, but the increase was not dramatically high. Furthermore, the improvement mainly occurred in the middle of the SNR range where the noise was not too intense. We made these observations with CI users and with NH subjects so it indicates that the results should be linked to the properties of the signal. Finally, as we cannot stop the consequences of aging, we can set up an action plan to reduce its effect. And this is true in everyday life. In the case of CIs, a lot of solutions are available, among them the choice of the sound coding strategy and the periodicity of the clinical check and device setting.

Keywords

Cochlear implants Microphone aging CI and NH listeners Coding strategies Cleaning procedures Syllable recognition in noise 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the persons and the institutions who participated to the study; M. Kevin Perreaut who initiated the work, Dr. Fabien Seldran and Dr. Fabien Millioz for the scientific contribution and Ms. Evelyne Veuillet for the links with the ethic committee. We also wanted to thank the members of the CRIC Lyon and the staff of the Edouard-Herriot hospital for their collaboration, the subjects who listened to the Fourier’s lists, the Hospitals of Lyon and the Polytechnic School of the University of Lyon.

References

  1. 1.
    Aguiar, D.E., Taylor, N.E., Li, J., Gazanfari, D.K., Talavage, T.M., Laflen, J.B., et al.: Information theoretic evaluation of a noiseband-based cochlear implant simulator. Hear. Res. (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Battmer, R.-D., O’Donoghue, G.M., Lenarz, T.: A multicenter study of device failure in European cochlear implant centers. Ear Hear. 28, 95S–99S (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balkany, T.J., Hodges, A.V., Buchman, C.A., Luxford, W.M., Pillsbury, C.H., Roland, P.S., et al.: Cochlear implant soft failures consensus development conference statement. Cochlear Implants Int. 6, 105–122 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schweitzer, C.: Mind the ports! The effect of severe microphone inlet occlusion: port disasters, or how everyday activities can lead to severe microphone occlusion in a directional hearing aid. Hear. Rev. 15, 14 (2008)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pereira, A.M., de Melo, T.M., Pereira, A.M., de Melo, T.M.: Repair issues associated with cochlear implants external components: the influence of age and time of use. Rev. CEFAC 16, 1419–1425 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Silverman, C.A., Linstrom, C.J., Gilston, N., Schoepflin, J.R.: Repair issues associated with cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int. 11, 469–472 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Razza, S., Burdo, S., Bonaretti, S.: Acoustical signal check: microphone integrity evaluation through a common hearing aid analyzer. In: 5th Object Measurement Symposium Cochlear Implants ABI, pp. 19–22 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Razza, S., Burdo, S.: An underestimated issue: unsuspected decrease of sound processor microphone sensitivity, technical, and clinical evaluation. Cochlear Implants Int. 12, 114–123 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wouters, J., McDermott, H.J., Francart, T.: Sound Coding in Cochlear Implants: from electric pulses to hearing. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 32, 67–80 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilson, B.S., Lawson, D.T., Zerbi, M., Finley, C.C., Wolford, R.D.: New processing strategies in cochlear implantation. Am. J. Otol. 16, 669–675 (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garnham, C., O’Driscoll, M., Ramsden And, R., Saeed, S.: Speech understanding in noise with a Med-El COMBI 40+ cochlear implant using reduced channel sets. Ear Hear. 23, 540–552 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dorman, M.F., Loizou, P.C., Fitzke, J., Tu, Z.: Recognition of monosyllabic words by cochlear implant patients and by normal-hearing subjects listening to words processed through cochlear implant signal processing strategies. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl. 185, 64–66 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shannon, R.V., Fu, Q.-J., Galvin, J.: The number of spectral channels required for speech recognition depends on the difficulty of the listening situation. Acta Oto-Laryngol. Suppl. 50–54 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dorman, M.F., Loizou, P.C.: The identification of consonants and vowels by cochlear implant patients using a 6-channel continuous interleaved sampling processor and by normal-hearing subjects using simulations of processors with two to nine channels. Ear Hear. 19, 162–166 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Traunmüller, H.: Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 88, 97–100 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Serra, P.-O.: Effet de l’entretien des aides auditives sur leurs performances [Audiology diploma dissertation]. University of Montpellier (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Perreaut, K., Gallego, S., Berger-Vachon, C., Millioz, F.: Influence of microphone encrusting on the efficiency of cochlear implants preliminary study with a simulation of CIS and “n-of-m” strategies. AMSE J. Model. C 75–2, 199–208 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kerber, S., Seeber, B.U.: Sound localization in noise by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 33, 445–457 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hazrati, O., Loizou, P.C.: Comparison of two channel selection criteria for noise suppression in cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133, 1615–1624 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shannon, R.V., Zeng, F.G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., Ekelid, M.: Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270, 303–304 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilson, B.S., Finley, C.C., Farmer, J.C., Lawson, D.T., Weber, B.A., Wolford, R.D., et al.: Comparative studies of speech processing strategies for cochlear implants. Laryngoscope 98, 1069–1077 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nelson, P.B., Jin, S.-H., Carney, A.E., Nelson, D.A.: Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113, 961–968 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Loizou, P.C., Dorman, M.F., Tu, Z., Fitzke, J.: Recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of speak-type cochlear implant signal processors. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl. 185, 67–68 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jeanvoine, A., Gnansia, D., Truy, E., Berger-Vachon, C.: Contribution of noise reduction algorithms: perception versus localization simulation in the case of binaural cochlear implant (BCI) coding. Emerg. Trends Comput. Biol. Bioinf. Syst. Biol. 307–324 (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kallel, F., Laboissiere, R., Ben Hamida, A., Berger-Vachon, C.: Influence of a shift in frequency distribution and analysis rate on phoneme intelligibility in noisy environments for simulated bilateral cochlear implants. Appl. Acoust. 74, 10–17 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hu, Y., Loizou, P.C.: A new sound coding strategy for suppressing noise in cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124, 498–509 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Berger-Vachon
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • P. A. Cucis
    • 1
  • E. Truy
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • H. Thai Van
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • S. Gallego
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.University Claude-Bernard Lyon1Villeurbanne-CedexFrance
  2. 2.Lyon Neurosciences Research Centre, (CRNL)Bron-CedexFrance
  3. 3.LBMC-IFSTTARBronFrance
  4. 4.Audition-Conseil CentreLyonFrance
  5. 5.CRIC, ORL Building, Edouard-Herriot HospitalLyon-Cedex 03France

Personalised recommendations