1 Department of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, NY, USA.
2 USC Tina and Rick Caruso Department of Otolaryngology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Trends Hear. 2018 Jan-Dec;22:2331216518807535. doi: 10.1177/2331216518807535.
Cochlear-implant users who have experienced both analog and pulsatile sound coding strategies often have strong preferences for the sound quality of one over the other. This suggests that analog and pulsatile stimulation may provide different information or sound quality to an implant listener. It has been well documented that many implant listeners both prefer and perform better with multichannel analog than multichannel pulsatile strategies, although the reasons for these differences remain unknown. Here, we examine the perceptual differences between analog and pulsatile stimulation on a single electrode. A multidimensional scaling task, analyzed across two dimensions, suggested that pulsatile stimulation was perceived to be considerably different from analog stimulation. Two associated tasks using single-dimensional scaling showed that analog stimulation was perceived to be less Clean on average than pulsatile stimulation and that the perceptual differences were not related to pitch. In a follow-up experiment, it was determined that the perceptual differences between analog and pulsatile stimulation were not dependent on the interpulse gap present in pulsatile stimulation. Although the results suggest that there is a large perceptual difference between analog and pulsatile stimulation, further work is needed to determine the nature of these differences.
经历过模拟和脉冲声编码策略的人工耳蜗使用者通常对一种声音质量比对另一种有强烈的偏好。这表明模拟和脉冲刺激可能为植入式聆听者提供不同的信息或音质。有充分的文献记载,许多植入式聆听者更喜欢多通道模拟策略,而不是多通道脉冲策略,尽管这些差异的原因尚不清楚。在这里,我们研究了单个电极上模拟和脉冲刺激之间的感知差异。多维标度任务分析了两个维度,表明脉冲刺激被感知为与模拟刺激有很大的不同。使用单维标度的两个相关任务表明,模拟刺激的平均清洁度低于脉冲刺激,并且感知差异与音高无关。在后续的实验中,确定了模拟和脉冲刺激之间的感知差异不依赖于脉冲刺激中的脉冲间隔。尽管结果表明模拟和脉冲刺激之间存在很大的感知差异,但需要进一步的工作来确定这些差异的性质。