Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol.  2020 Aug;13(3):241-248. 10.21053/ceo.2019.01081.

Noise-Induced Change of Cortical Temporal Processing in Cochlear Implant Users

• Han JH
• Lee J
• Lee HJ

• KMID: 2504918
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.21053/ceo.2019.01081

Abstract

Objectives
. Cochlear implant (CI) users typically report impaired ability to understand speech in noise. Speech understanding in CI users decreases with noise due to reduced temporal processing ability, and speech perceptual errors involve stop consonants distinguished by voice onset time (VOT). The current study examined the effects of noise on various speech perception tests while at the same time used cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) to quantify the change of neural processing of speech sounds caused by noise. We hypothesized that the noise effects on VOT processing can be reflected in N1/P2 measures, the neural changes relate to behavioral speech perception performances.
Methods
. Ten adult CI users and 15 normal-hearing (NH) people participated in this study. CAEPs were recorded from 64 scalp electrodes in both quiet and noise (signal-to-noise ratio +5 dB) and in passive and active (requiring consonant discrimination) listening. Speech stimulus was synthesized consonant-vowels with VOTs of 0 and 50 ms. N1-P2 amplitudes and latencies were analyzed as a function of listening condition. For the active condition, the P3b also was analyzed. Behavioral measures included a variety of speech perception tasks.
Results
. For good performing CI users, performance in most speech test was lower in the presence of noise masking. N1 and P2 latencies became prolonged with noise masking. The P3b amplitudes were smaller in CI groups compared to NH. The degree of P2 latency change (0 vs. 50 ms VOT) was correlated with consonant perception in noise.
Conclusion
. The effects of noise masking on temporal processing can be reflected in cortical responses in CI users. N1/P2 latencies were more sensitive to noise masking than amplitude measures. Additionally, P2 responses appear to have a better relationship to speech perception in CI users compared to N1.

Keyword

Cochlear Implant; Noise-Induced; Auditory Evoked Potentials; Voice Onset Time

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Acoustic of stimuli consisted of consonant-vowel syllables with 0 and 50 ms VOTs. The total duration of stimulus was 180 ms, and it was presented in quiet (upper) and noise (bottom) listening conditions. VOT, voice onset time.

• 

  Fig. 2. Speech perception in noise for good cochlear implant (CI) users (A) and poor CI users (B). (A) All tests except Wordlow were significantly different between quiet and noise condition for good CI users. (B) Only Wordhigh was significantly different between quiet and noise condition for poor CI users. Error bars are standard deviation (*P<0.05, **P<0.01).

• 

  Fig. 3. Grand mean waveforms to a consonant-vowel with 0 ms VOT with and without noise masking for normal-hearing (NH) participants, good cochlear implant (CI) performers, and poor CI performers during passive (upper) and active (lower) listening conditions. N1/P2 and P3 responses were recorded from fronto-central (left) and parietal (right) electrodes, respectively. VOT, voice onset time.

• 

  Fig. 4. Topography of the N1, P2, and P3b responses under quiet and noise conditions for the normal-hearing (NH) and good and poor performing cochlear implant (CI) groups. The top row shows the N1 topographies for quiet/noise listening. The second row shows the topographies of P2. Note the greater (more positive) responses under quiet than noise conditions in the NH group whereas no difference was shown in CI groups. The bottom row shows the topographies of P3b measured under active condition. Note the greater P3b shown in NH group compared to both CI groups.

• 

  Fig. 5. Significant Spearman rank correlation between the P2 latency difference (0 vs. 50 ms VOT) and consonant in noise perception. Note that consonant in noise performances were better as the differences in P2 latency were smaller. VOT, voice onset time; CI, cochlear implant.

Reference

1. Ponton CW, Don M, Eggermont JJ, Waring MD, Masuda A. Maturation of human cortical auditory function: differences between normal-hearing children and children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 1996; Oct. 17(5):430–7.

2. Rouger J, Lagleyre S, Fraysse B, Deneve S, Deguine O, Barone P. Evidence that cochlear-implanted deaf patients are better multisensory integrators. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007; Apr. 104(17):7295–300.

3. Niemitalo-Haapola E, Haapala S, Jansson-Verkasalo E, Kujala T. Background noise degrades central auditory processing in toddlers. Ear Hear. 2015; Nov-Dec. 36(6):e342–51.

4. Fu QJ, Nogaki G. Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2005; Mar. 6(1):19–27.

5. Hopkins K, Moore BC. The contribution of temporal fine structure to the intelligibility of speech in steady and modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; Jan. 125(1):442–6.

6. Won JH, Drennan WR, Rubinstein JT. Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007; Sep. 8(3):384–92.

7. Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Parbery-Clark A, Kraus N. A dynamic auditory-cognitive system supports speech-in-noise perception in older adults. Hear Res. 2013; Jun. 300:18–32.

8. Bidelman GM, Howell M. Functional changes in inter- and intra-hemispheric cortical processing underlying degraded speech perception. Neuroimage. 2016; Jan. 124(Pt A):581–90.

9. Zhang C, Lu L, Wu X, Li L. Attentional modulation of the early cortical representation of speech signals in informational or energetic masking. Brain Lang. 2014; Aug. 135:85–95.

10. Dimitrijevic A, Pratt H, Starr A. Auditory cortical activity in normal hearing subjects to consonant vowels presented in quiet and in noise. Clin Neurophysiol. 2013; Jun. 124(6):1204–15.

11. Parbery-Clark A, Marmel F, Bair J, Kraus N. What subcortical-cortical relationships tell us about processing speech in noise. Eur J Neurosci. 2011; Feb. 33(3):549–57.

12. Rao A, Zhang Y, Miller S. Selective listening of concurrent auditory stimuli: an event-related potential study. Hear Res. 2010; Sep. 268(1-2):123–32.

13. Fu QJ, Galvin JJ 3rd. Maximizing cochlear implant patients’ performance with advanced speech training procedures. Hear Res. 2008; Aug. 242(1-2):198–208.

14. Oba SI, Fu QJ, Galvin JJ 3rd. Digit training in noise can improve cochlear implant users’ speech understanding in noise. Ear Hear. 2011; Sep-Oct. 32(5):573–81.

15. Han JH, Zhang F, Kadis DS, Houston LM, Samy RN, Smith ML, et al. Auditory cortical activity to different voice onset times in cochlear implant users. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016; Feb. 127(2):1603–17.

16. Delorme A, Makeig S. EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods. 2004; Mar. 134(1):9–21.

17. Picton TW, Hillyard SA. Human auditory evoked potentials. II. Effects of attention. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1974; Feb. 36(2):191–9.

18. Toscano JC, McMurray B, Dennhardt J, Luck SJ. Continuous perception and graded categorization: electrophysiological evidence for a linear relationship between the acoustic signal and perceptual encoding of speech. Psychol Sci. 2010; Oct. 21(10):1532–40.

19. Tremblay K, Ross B. Effects of age and age-related hearing loss on the brain. J Commun Disord. 2007; Jul-Aug. 40(4):305–12.

20. Bertoli S, Smurzynski J, Probst R. Effects of age, age-related hearing loss, and contralateral cafeteria noise on the discrimination of small frequency changes: psychoacoustic and electrophysiological measures. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2005; Sep. 6(3):207–22.

21. Alain C, Roye A, Salloum C. Effects of age-related hearing loss and background noise on neuromagnetic activity from auditory cortex. Front Syst Neurosci. 2014; Jan. 8:8.

22. Shtyrov Y, Kujala T, Ilmoniemi RJ, Naatanen R. Noise affects speechsignal processing differently in the cerebral hemispheres. Neuroreport. 1999; Jul. 10(10):2189–92.

23. Sharma M, Purdy SC, Munro KJ, Sawaya K, Peter V. Effects of broadband noise on cortical evoked auditory responses at different loudness levels in young adults. Neuroreport. 2014; Mar. 25(5):312–9.

24. Henkin Y, Kileny PR, Hildesheimer M, Kishon-Rabin L. Phonetic processing in children with cochlear implants: an auditory event-related potentials study. Ear Hear. 2008; Apr. 29(2):239–49.

25. Henkin Y, Tetin-Schneider S, Hildesheimer M, Kishon-Rabin L. Cortical neural activity underlying speech perception in postlingual adult cochlear implant recipients. Audiol Neurootol. 2009; 14(1):39–53.

26. Henkin Y, Yaar-Soffer Y, Steinberg M, Muchnik C. Neural correlates of auditory-cognitive processing in older adult cochlear implant recipients. Audiol Neurootol. 2014; 19 Suppl 1:21–6.

27. Groenen PA, Beynon AJ, Snik AF, van den Broek P. Speech-evoked cortical potentials and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Scand Audiol. 2001; 30(1):31–40.

28. Beynon AJ, Snik AF, Stegeman DF, van den Broek P. Discrimination of speech sound contrasts determined with behavioral tests and eventrelated potentials in cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005; Jan. 16(1):42–53.

29. Alain C, Campeanu S, Tremblay K. Changes in sensory evoked responses coincide with rapid improvement in speech identification performance. J Cogn Neurosci. 2010; Feb. 22(2):392–403.

30. Snyder JS, Pasinski AC, McAuley JD. Listening strategy for auditory rhythms modulates neural correlates of expectancy and cognitive processing. Psychophysiology. 2011; Feb. 48(2):198–207.

31. Dimitrijevic A, Smith ML, Kadis DS, Moore DR. Cortical alpha oscillations predict speech intelligibility. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017; Feb. 11:88.

32. Choi I, Rajaram S, Varghese LA, Shinn-Cunningham BG. Quantifying attentional modulation of auditory-evoked cortical responses from single-trial electroencephalography. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013; Apr. 7:115.

33. Schumann A, Hast A, Hoppe U. Speech performance and training effects in the cochlear implant elderly. Audiol Neurootol. 2014; 19 Suppl 1:45–8.

34. Snyder JS, Alain C, Picton TW. Effects of attention on neuroelectric correlates of auditory stream segregation. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006; Jan. 18(1):1–13.

35. Billings CJ, Bennett KO, Molis MR, Leek MR. Cortical encoding of signals in noise: effects of stimulus type and recording paradigm. Ear Hear. 2011; Feb. 32(1):53–60.

36. Tremblay KL, Ross B, Inoue K, McClannahan K, Collet G. Is the auditory evoked P2 response a biomarker of learning. Front Syst Neurosci. 2014; Feb. 8:28.