Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants
Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/aud.0b013e31816a0d3d
复制
发表时间：
2008-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Stille, Lisa J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hughes, Michelle L.;Stille, Lisa J.
目的：本研究的主要目的是确定人工耳蜗植入体中的生理前向掩蔽模式是否可预测心理物理前向掩蔽（PFM）模式。假设生理掩蔽的标准化量将与不同掩蔽物-探针电极间隔的心理物理掩蔽的标准化量正相关。第二个目标是研究空间前掩蔽模式和言语感知性能之间的关系。据推测，受试者较少的通道相互作用的整体（无论是心理或生理）将有更好的语音感知能力，因为更好的频谱resolution.Design：数据收集了18个成人人工耳蜗植入者[N = 9克拉里昂CII或HiRes 90 K，N = 9核24 R（CS）I。通过植入遥测系统，用电诱发复合动作电位（ECAP）获得生理空间前向掩蔽模式。PFM模式获得使用三个间隔，两个替代的强迫选择自适应程序。这两种措施都使用了一个固定的探头电极与不同的掩蔽位置。对于每一个主题，空间前掩蔽模式，获得了三个探头电极与5掩蔽位置每个probe.Results：在个人的基础上，ECAP FM和PFM之间的相关性是强的10个主题（r = 0.68 - 0.85，p 0.14）。受试者和电极之间的结果显示ECAP FM和PFM之间的高度显著相关性（r = 0.55，p < 0.0001）;基底电极的相关性最强。言语知觉与ECAP FM或PFM无显著相关。受试者的ECAP FM模式相关以及PFM模式一般有最差的言语知觉和受试者的相关性最差的最好的言语perception.Conclusions：ECAP FM和PFM模式相关以及三分之二的科目。尽管组间相关性具有统计学显著性，但ECAP FM模式仅占PFM测量值方差的30%。这表明，ECAP措施本身是不够的，准确预测PFM模式的个别科目。
Objectives: The primary goal of this study was to determine if physiological forward masking patterns in cochlear implants are predictive of psychophysical forward masking (PFM) patterns. It was hypothesized that the normalized amount of physiological masking would be positively correlated with the normalized amount of psychophysical masking for different masker-probe electrode separations. A secondary goal was to examine the relation between the spatial forward masking patterns and speech perception performance. It was hypothesized that subjects with less channel interaction overall (either psychophysically or physiologically) would have better speech perception ability because of better spectral resolution.Design: Data were collected for 18 adult cochlear implant recipients [N = 9 Clarion CII or HiRes 90K, N = 9 Nucleus 24R(CS)I. Physiological spatial forward masking patterns were obtained with the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) through the implant telemetry system. PFM patterns were obtained using a three-interval, two-alternative forced-choice adaptive procedure. Both measures used a fixed probe electrode with varied masker location. For each subject, spatial forward masking patterns were obtained for three probe electrodes with five masker locations per probe.Results: On an individual basis, the correlation between ECAP FM and PFM was strong for 10 subjects (r = 0.68 - 0.85, p 0.14). Results across subjects and electrodes showed a highly significant correlation between ECAP FM and PFM (r = 0.55, p < 0.0001); the correlation was strongest for basal electrodes. There was no significant correlation between speech perception and ECAP FM or PFM. Subjects whose ECAP FM patterns correlated well with PFM patterns generally had the poorest speech perception and subjects with the poorest correlations had the best speech perception.Conclusions: ECAP FM and PFM patterns correlated well for two-thirds of the subjects. Although the group correlation was statistically significant, ECAP FM patterns only accounted for 30% of the variance in the PFM measures. This suggests that the ECAP measures alone are not sufficient for accurately predicting PFM patterns for individual subjects.