Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Nov;23(6):309-316.
doi: 10.1080/14670100.2022.2096182. Epub 2022 Jul 23.

Parameter tuning of time-frequency masking algorithms for reverberant artifact removal within the cochlear implant stimulus

Affiliations

Parameter tuning of time-frequency masking algorithms for reverberant artifact removal within the cochlear implant stimulus

Lidea K Shahidi et al. Cochlear Implants Int. 2022 Nov.

Abstract

Cochlear implant recipients struggle to understand speech in reverberant environments. To restore speech perception, artifacts due to reverberant reflections can be removed from the cochlear implant stimulus by applying a matrix of gain values, a technique referred to as time-frequency masking. In this study, two common time-frequency masking strategies are implemented within cochlear implant processing, either introducing complete retention or deletion of stimulus components using a binary mask or continuous attenuation of stimulus components using a ratio mask. Parameters of each masking strategy control the level of attenuation imposed by the gain values. In this study, we perceptually tune the parameters of the masking strategy to determine a balance between speech retention and artifact removal. We measure the intelligibility of reverberant signals mitigated by each strategy with speech recognition testing in normal-hearing listeners using vocoding as a simulation of cochlear implant perception. For both masking strategies, we find parameterizations that maximize the intelligibility of the mitigated signals. At the best-performing parameterizations, binary-masked reverberant signals yield larger intelligibility improvements than ratio-masked signals. The results provide a perceptually optimized objective for the removal of reverberant artifacts from cochlear implant stimuli, facilitating improved speech recognition performance for cochlear implant recipients in reverberant environments.

Keywords: ACE processing; Cochlear Implants; Reverberation; Time-frequency masking.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Interest Statement

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Gain function curves mapping SRR values to mask values when (A) varying τ for the IBM, (B) varying α (at β = 1) for the IRM, and (C) varying β (at α = 1) for the IRM.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Electrodograms of the speech token “A boy fell from the window,” showing the CI stimulation pattern of (A) the direct path signal; (B) the reverberant signal; and mitigated reverberant signals obtained by applying (C, E, G) ideal binary masks (IBMs) and ideal ratio masks (IRMs) with increasing parameter values, τ and β, respectively, to the reverberant signal. The mask parameter controls the sparsity of the mask, resulting in under-attenuation (C and D) to over-attenuation (G and H) of the reverberant signal as the parameter value increases.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Percent of phonemes correctly identified in (A) IBM and (B) IRM conditions as a function of τ or β, respectively. Each marker indicates the average score over twenty listeners, with error bars indicating the standard deviation. Performance given the direct path of the reverberant signal (DP) and the unmitigated reverberant signal (UN) are given to the left in each plot. Asterisks (*) above mask conditions indicates significant pairwise differences from the unmitigated condition.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Anzalone MC, Calandruccio L, Doherty KA, & Carney LH (2006). Determination of the potential benefit of time-frequency gain manipulation. Ear and Hearing, 27(5), 480–492. 10.1097/01.aud.0000233891.86809.df - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Blamey PJ, Dowell RC, Tong YC, & Clark GM (1984). An acoustic model of a multiple-channel cochlear implant. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76(1), 97–103. 10.1121/1.391012 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brungart DS, Chang PS, Simpson BD, & Wang D (2006). Isolating the energetic component of speech-on-speech masking with ideal time-frequency segregation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120(6), 4007–4018. 10.1121/1.2363929 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chu KM, Collins LM, & Mainsah BO (2021). Phoneme-based time-frequency mask estimation for reverberant speech enhancement for cochlear implant users. Conf Implant Audit Prostheses.
    1. Dorman MF, Loizou PC, & Rainey D (1997). Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2403–2411. 10.1121/1.419603 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types