Natale, Sarah Cook

Fourteen single-sided deaf listeners fit with an MED-EL cochlear implant (CI) judged the similarity of clean signals presented to their CI and modified signals presented to their normal-hearing ear. The signals to the normal-hearing ear were created by (a) filtering, (b) spectral smearing, (c) changing overall fundamental frequency (F0), (d) F0 contour flattening, (e) changing formant frequencies, (f) altering resonances and ring times to create a metallic sound quality, (g) using a noise vocoder, or (h) using a sine vocoder. The operations could be used singly or in any combination. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 was a complete match to the sound of the CI, the mean match score was 8.8. Over half of the matches were 9.0 or higher. The most common alterations to a clean signal were band-pass or low-pass filtering, spectral peak smearing, and F0 contour flattening. On average, 3.4 operations were used to create a match. Upshifts in formant frequencies were implemented most often for electrode insertion angles less than approximately 500°. A relatively small set of operations can produce signals that approximate the sound of the MED-EL CI. There are large individual differences in the combination of operations needed. The sound files in Supplemental Material approximate the sound of the MED-EL CI for patients fit with 28-mm electrode arrays.

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.