Forward-masked psychophysical spatial tuning curves (fmSTCs) were measured in twelve cochlearimplant subjects, six using bipolar stimulation (Nucleus devices)and six using monopolar stimulation (Clarion devices). fmSTCs were measured at several probe levels on a middle electrode using a fixedlevel probe stimulus and variable-level maskers. The average fmSTC slopes obtained in subjects using bipolar stimulation (3.7 dB/mm) were approximately three times steeper than average slopes obtained in subjects using monopolar stimulation (1.2 dB/mm). Average spatial bandwidths were about half as wide for subjects with bipolar stimulation (2.6 mm) than for subjects with monopolar stimulation (4.6 mm). None of the tuning curve characteristics changed significantly with probe level. fmSTCs replotted in terms of acoustic frequency, using Greenwood's [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 33, 1344-1356 (1961)] frequency-to-place equation, were compared with forward-masked psychophysical tuning curves obtained previously from normal-hearing and hearing-impaired acoustic listeners. The average tuning characteristics of fmSTCs in electric hearing were similar to the broad tuning observed in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired acoustic listeners at high stimulus levels. This suggests that spatial tuning is not the primary factor limiting speech perception in many cochlear implant users.

Simultaneous or near-simultaneous activation of adjacent cochlear implant electrodes can produce pitch percepts intermediate to those produced by each electrode separately, thereby increasing the number of place-pitch steps available to cochlear implant listeners. To estimate how many distinct pitches could be generated with simultaneous dual-electrode stimulation, the present study measured place-pitch discrimination thresholds for single- versus dual-electrode stimuli in users of the Clarion CII device. Discrimination thresholds were expressed as the proportion of current directed to the secondary electrode of the dual-electrode pair. For 16 of 17 electrode pairs tested in six subjects, thresholds ranged from 0.11 to 0.64, suggesting that dual-electrode stimuli can produce 2-9 discriminable pitches between the pitches of single electrodes. Some subjects demonstrated a level effect, with better place-pitch discrimination at higher stimulus levels. Equal loudness was achieved with dual-electrode stimuli at net current levels that were similar to or slightly higher than those for single-electrode stimuli.

Difference limens (DLs) for changes in electric current were measured from multiple electrodes in each of eight cochlear-implanted subjects. Stimuli were 200-microseconds/phase biphasic pulse trains delivered at 125 Hz in 300-ms bursts. DLs were measured with an adaptive three-alternative forced-choice procedure. Fixed-level psychometric functions were also obtained in four subjects to validate the adaptive DLs. Relative intensity DLs, specified as Weber fractions in decibels [10 log (delta I/I)] for standards above absolute threshold, decreased as a power function of stimulus intensity relative to absolute threshold [delta I/I = beta (I/I0) alpha] in the same manner as Weber fractions for normal acoustic stimulation reported in previous studies. Exponents (alpha) of the power function for electric stimulation ranged from -0.4 to -3.2, on average, an order of magnitude larger than exponents for acoustic stimulation, which range from -0.07 to -0.11. Normalization of stimulus intensity to the dynamic range of hearing resulted in Weber functions with similar negative slopes for electric and acoustic stimulation, corresponding to an 8-dB average improvement in Weber fractions across the dynamic range. Sensitivity to intensity change ¿10 log beta¿ varied from -0.42 to -13.5 dB compared to +0.60 to -3.34 dB for acoustic stimulation, but on average was better with electric stimulation than with acoustic stimulation. Psychometric functions for intensity discrimination yielded Weber fractions consistent with adaptive procedures and d' was a linear function of delta I. Variability among repeated Weber-fraction estimates was constant across dynamic range. Relatively constant Weber fractions across all or part of the dynamic range, observed in some subjects, were traced to the intensity resolution limits of individual implanted receiver/stimulators. DLs could not be accurately described by constant amplitude changes, expressed as a percentage of dynamic range ¿delta A(% DR)¿. Weber fractions from prelingually deafened subjects were no better or worse than those from postlingually deafened subjects. The cumulative number of discriminable intensity steps across the dynamic range of electric hearing ranged from as few as 6.6 to as many as 45.2. Physiologic factors that may determine important features of electric intensity discrimination are discussed in the context of a simple, qualitative, rate-based model. These factors include the lack of compressive cochlear preprocessing, the relative steepness of neural rate-intensity functions, and individual differences in patterns of neural survival.

Psychophysical pulse-train forward-masking (PTFM) recovery functions were measured in fifteen subjects with the Nucleus mini-22 cochlear implant and six subjects with the Clarion cochlear implant. Masker and probe stimuli were 500-Hz trains of 200- or 77-micros/phase biphasic current pulses. Electrode configurations were bipolar for Nucleus subjects and monopolar for Clarion subjects. Masker duration was 320 ms. Probe duration was either 10 ms or 30 ms. Recovery functions were measured for a high-level masker on a middle electrode in all 21 subjects, on apical and basal electrodes in 7 of the Nucleus and 3 of the Clarion subjects, and for multiple masker levels on the middle electrode in 8 Nucleus subjects and 6 Clarion subjects. Recovery functions were described by an exponential process in which threshold shift (in microA) decreased exponentially with increasing time delay between the offset of the masker pulse train and the offset of the probe pulse train. All but 3 of the 21 subjects demonstrated recovery time constants on a middle electrode that were less than 95 ms. The mean time constant for these 18 subjects was 54 ms (s.d. 17 ms). Three other subjects tested on three electrodes exhibited time constants larger than 95 ms from an apical electrode only. Growth-of-masking slopes depended upon time delay, as expected from an exponential recovery process, i.e., progressively shallower slopes were observed at time delays of 10 ms and 50 ms. Recovery of threshold shift (in microA) for PTFM in electrical hearing behaves inthe same way as recovery of threshold shift (in dB) for pure-tone forward masking in acoustic hearing. This supports the concept that linear microamps are the electrical equivalent of acoustic decibels. Recovery from PTFM was not related to speech recognition in a simple manner. Three subjects with prolonged PTFM recovery demonstrated poor speech scores. The remaining subjects with apparently normal PTFM recovery demonstrated speech scores ranging from poor to excellent. Findings suggest that normal PTFM recovery is only one of several factors associated with good speech recognition in cochlear-implant listeners. Comparisons of recovery curves for 10- and 30-ms probe durations in two subjects showed little or no temporal integration at time delays less than 95 ms where recovery functions have steep slopes. The same subjects exhibited large amounts of temporal integration at longer time delays where recovery slopes are more gradual. This suggests that probe detection depends primarily on detection of the final pulses in the probe stimulus and supports the use of offset-to-offset time delays for characterizing PTFM recovery in electric hearing.

Two related studies investigated the relationship between place-pitch sensitivity and consonant recognition in cochlear implant listeners using the Nucleus MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. Average place-pitch sensitivity across the electrode array was evaluated as a function of electrode separation, using a psychophysical electrode pitch-ranking task. Consonant recognition was assessed by analyzing error matrices obtained with a standard consonant confusion procedure to obtain relative transmitted information (RTI) measures for three features: stimulus (RTI stim), envelope (RTI env[plc]), and place-of-articulation (RTI plc[env]). The first experiment evaluated consonant recognition performance with MPEAK and SPEAK in the same subjects. Subjects were experienced users of the MPEAK strategy who used the SPEAK strategy on a daily basis for one month and were tested with both processors. It was hypothesized that subjects with good place-pitch sensitivity would demonstrate better consonant place-cue perception with SPEAK than with MPEAK, by virtue of their ability to make use of SPEAK's enhanced representation of spectral speech cues. Surprisingly, all but one subject demonstrated poor consonant place-cue performance with both MPEAK and SPEAK even though most subjects demonstrated good or excellent place-pitch sensitivity. Consistent with this, no systematic relationship between place-pitch sensitivity and consonant place-cue performance was observed. Subjects' poor place-cue perception with SPEAK was subsequently attributed to the relatively short period of experience that they were given with the SPEAK strategy. The second study reexamined the relationship between place-pitch sensitivity and consonant recognition in a group of experienced SPEAK users. For these subjects, a positive relationship was observed between place-pitch sensitivity and consonant place-cue performance, supporting the hypothesis that good place-pitch sensitivity facilitates subjects' use of spectral cues to consonant identity. A strong, linear relationship was also observed between measures of envelope- and place-cue extraction, with place-cue performance increasing as a constant proportion (approximately 0.8) of envelope-cue performance. To the extent that the envelope-cue measure reflects subjects' abilities to resolve amplitude fluctuations in the speech envelope, this finding suggests that both envelope- and place-cue perception depend strongly on subjects' envelope-processing abilities. Related to this, the data suggest that good place-cue perception depends both on envelope-processing abilities and place-pitch sensitivity, and that either factor may limit place-cue perception in a given cochlear implant listener. Data from both experiments indicate that subjects with small electric dynamic ranges (< 8 dB for 125-Hz, 205-microsecond/ph pulse trains) are more likely to demonstrate poor electrode pitch-ranking skills and poor consonant recognition performance than subjects with larger electric dynamic ranges.