Auditory prostheses not only bring a high level of functional hearing to deafened patients, but can also be a powerful tool for auditory neuroscience. Given the minimal and distorted cues provided by these devices, what factors allow some patients to recognize speech while others cannot? This proposal achieves leverage on this question by comparing psychophysical and speech performance across patient etiologies, patient performance levels, and across implant locations: cochlea, cochlear nucleus (CN), and inferior colliculus (IC). The long-term goal of this proposal is to utilize prosthetic activation of different stages in the human auditory system to understand how different levels of auditory processing contribute to speech pattern recognition. Our primary hypothesis is that speech pattern recognition depends strongly on specific peripheral processing, and that damage to these peripheral elements degrades speech recognition even when most other perceptual elements appear to be normal. A secondary hypothesis is that psychophysical performance with simple stimuli is not a good predictor of speech performance with electric hearing;psychophysical measures with complex stimuli may utilize similar perceptual mechanisms used for speech recognition, and thereby better predict patient outcomes.
The specific aims are: 1. To quantify perceptual measures that may reflect biophysics from electrical stimulation of surface and penetrating electrodes in the cochlea, cochlear nucleus, and inferior colliculus in deaf patients. 2. To compare performance on simple and complex psychophysical tasks in patients with surface and penetrating electrodes in the cochlea, CN, and IC. 3. To use the results from Aims 1 and 2 to develop a profile that distinguishes patients with good speech recognition from those with poorer levels of recognition. The psychophysical tasks that correlate with speech recognition, obtained from electrical stimulation at three different levels of the auditory periphery, may help to define the perceptual characteristics of the putative peripheral damage. In addition, comparison of speech recognition and profiles of psychophysical performance will suggest links between basic perceptual capabilities and more complex auditory pattern recognition.
|Shannon, Robert V (2015) Auditory implant research at the House Ear Institute 1989-2013. Hear Res 322:57-66|
|Goldsworthy, Raymond L; Shannon, Robert V (2014) Training improves cochlear implant rate discrimination on a psychophysical task. J Acoust Soc Am 135:334-41|
|Colletti, Liliana; Shannon, Robert V; Colletti, Vittorio (2014) The development of auditory perception in children after auditory brainstem implantation. Audiol Neurootol 19:386-94|
|Saoji, Aniket A; Landsberger, David M; Padilla, Monica et al. (2013) Masking patterns for monopolar and phantom electrode stimulation in cochlear implants. Hear Res 298:109-16|
|Aronoff, Justin M; Landsberger, David M (2013) The development of a modified spectral ripple test. J Acoust Soc Am 134:EL217-22|
|Srinivasan, Arthi G; Padilla, Monica; Shannon, Robert V et al. (2013) Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 299:29-36|
|Luo, Xin; Padilla, Monica; Landsberger, David M (2012) Pitch contour identification with combined place and temporal cues using cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 131:1325-36|
|Shannon, Robert V (2012) Advances in auditory prostheses. Curr Opin Neurol 25:61-6|
|Shannon, Robert V; Cruz, Rachel J; Galvin 3rd, John J (2011) Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant users' phoneme, word and sentence recognition in quiet and in noise. Audiol Neurootol 16:113-23|
|Srinivasan, Arthi G; Landsberger, David M; Shannon, Robert V (2010) Current focusing sharpens local peaks of excitation in cochlear implant stimulation. Hear Res 270:89-100|
Showing the most recent 10 out of 38 publications