Sensory SystemsSensory SystemsСенсорные системы0235-00923034-5936The Russian Academy of Sciences67579510.31857/S0235009223040066CNYEVZОБЗОРЫHearing perception by cochlear implantationСлуховое восприятие при кохлеарной имплантацииPudovV. I.ПудовВ. И.v_pudov@mail.ruZontovaO. V.ЗонтоваО. В.v_pudov@mail.ruSaint-Petersburg Research Institute of Ear, Throat, Nose and Speech Russian FederationФГБУ Санкт-Петербургский НИИ уха, горла, носа и речи МЗ РФ0110202337432032928022025Copyright ©; 2023, Russian Academy of SciencesCopyright ©; 2023, Российская академия наук2023Russian Academy of SciencesРоссийская академия наукhttps://journals.eco-vector.com/0235-0092/article/view/675795

Cochlear implantation is a unique development in the field of prosthetics of human sensory systems. Due to the electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve, auditory sensations close to natural occur. Despite significant progress in the engineering design of cochlear implants (CI), the quality of auditory perception when used is significantly limited. CI users experience the greatest difficulties in communication tasks such as understanding speech in noise or in multi-talkers environment. There are many factors, both technical and physiological, to reduce speech intelligibility in CI users. Speech perception in CI users is limited due to low frequency resolution, perceptual distortion of pitch, and compression of dynamic range. Low frequency resolution is the reason a decrease in speech intelligibility and the ability to perceive music. To realize these ability the question about the state of central hearing mechanisms, especially for children with congenital deafness, is crucial Neuroplasticity with ages decreases and the central auditory processing deficiency develops, therefore, it is desirable to carry out cochlear implantation as early as possible after hearing loss identification. Analysis of the auditory perception features in case of the auditory nerve is electrically excited allows not only to propose innovative approaches to improve the auditory abilities of CI users, but also to study auditory processing disorders.

Кохлеарная имплантация – уникальная разработка в области протезирования сенсорных систем человека. За счет электрического раздражения слухового нерва возникают слуховые ощущения, близкие к естественным. Несмотря на значительный прогресс в разработке кохлеарных имплантов (КИ), качество слухового восприятия при их использовании существенно ограничено. Наибольшие трудности у пользователей КИ возникают в сложных ситуациях коммуникации, таких как восприятие речи в шуме или с несколькими говорящими. Существует множество факторов, как технических, так и физиологических, которые затрудняют разборчивость речи у пользователей КИ. Восприятие речи у пользователей КИ ограничено из-за низкой разрешающей способности по частоте, искажения восприятия высоты и сжатия динамического диапазона. Низкая разрешающая способность по частоте проявляется в снижении разборчивости речи и способности воспринимать музыку. Важным является вопрос о состоянии центральных механизмов слуха, особенно для детей с врожденной глухотой. С возрастом у ребенка снижается пластичность мозга и затрудняются процессы формирования центральных слуховых механизмов, поэтому желательно проводить кохлеарную имплантацию в как можно более раннем возрасте после выявления тугоухости. Изучение особенностей слухового восприятия при электрическом возбуждении слухового нерва позволяет не только предложить инновационные подходы для улучшения слуховых способностей пользователей КИ, но и определить новые направления в изучении слуховой системы человека.

cochlear implantationpitchloudnessdifferential frequency thresholdspeech intelligibility: кохлеарная имплантациявысота звукагромкостьдифференциальный порог по частотеразборчивость речиAldoshina I.A., Pritts R. Muzikalinay acustica [Musical acoustics]. St. Petersburg: Composer, 2006. 720 p. (in Russian).Алдошина И.А., Приттс Р. Музыкальная акустика. СПб.: Композитор, 2006. 720 сBissmeyer S.R., Hossain S., Goldsworthy R.L. Perceptual learning of pitch provided by cochlear implant stimulation rate. PLoS ONE. 2020. 15 (12). e0242842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242842Бобошко М.Ю., Бердникова И.П., Салахбеков М.А., Мальцева Н.В. Психоакустические методы в диагностике центральных нарушений слуха при сенсоневральной тугоухости. Российская оториноларингология. 2017. № 2 (87). С. 9–16. https://doi.org/10.18692/1810-4800-2017-2-9-16Boboshko M.Yu., Berdnikova I.P., Salakhbekov M.A., Maltseva N.V. Psichoacusticheskie metodu v diagnostike centralinuch naruschenii slucha pri sensonevralinoi tugouchosti [Psychoacoustic methods in the diagnosis of central hearing disorders in sensorineural hearing loss]. Rossiiskay otorinolaryngologii [Russian Otorhinolaryngology]. 2017. № 2 (87). P. 9–16 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.18692/1810-4800-2017-2-9-16Королева И.В. Кохлеарная имплантация и слухоречевая реабилитация глухих детей и взрослых. СПб.: КАРО, 2009. 186 с. ISBN 978-5-9925-0348-7.Caldwell M.T., Jiam N.T., Limb C.J. Assessment and Improvement of Sound Quality in Cochlear Implant Users. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology. 2017. № 2. Р. 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.71Королева И.В. Введение в кохлеарную имплантацию. СПб.: КАРО, 2023. 224 с. ISBN: 978-5-9925-1644-9.Canfarotta M., Dillon M., Brown K., Pillsbury H., Dedmon M., O’Connell B. Insertion Depth and Cochlear Implant Speech Recognition Outcomes: A Comparative Study of 28- and 31.5-mm Lateral Wall Arrays. Otol. Neurotol. 2022. № 43 (2). P. 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003416Пудов В.И., Стефанович М.А. Восприятие музыки пользователями кохлеарных имплантов. Российская оториноларингология. 2010. № 2 (45). С. 114–119.Cesur S., Derinsu U. Temporal Processing and Speech Perception Performance in Postlingual Adult Users of Cochlear Implants. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 2020. № 31. P. 129–136. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.19002Стефанович М.А., Пудов В.И. Особенности слуховых ощущений при электродном протезировании. 2013. 126 с. ISBN: 978-3-659-40813-7.Chen F., Chen J., Luo X. New discoveries in the benefits and outcomes of cochlear implantation. Neurosci., Sec. Auditory Cognitive Neuroscience. 2022. V. 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.1062582Таварткиладзе Г.А. Современное состояние и перспективы развития кохлеарной имплантации. Вестник оториноларингологии. 2015. № 80 (3). С. 4–9. https://doi.org/10.17116/otorino20158034-9Dianzhao X., Jianfen L., Xiuhua Ch. at al. Relationship between the ability to detect frequency changes or temporal gaps and speech perception performance in post-lingual cochlear implant users. Neurosci., Sec. Auditory Cognitive. 2022. V. 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.904724Bissmeyer S.R., Hossain S., Goldsworthy R.L. Perceptual learning of pitch provided by cochlear implant stimulation rate. PLoS ONE. 2020. 15 (12). e0242842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242842Divenyi P., Shannon R. Auditory time constants unified. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1983. V. 74. S10. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2020735Caldwell M.T., Jiam N.T., Limb C.J. Assessment and Improvement of Sound Quality in Cochlear Implant Users. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology. 2017. № 2. P. 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.71Dorman M.F., Spahr A.J. Speech perception by adults with multichannel implants. Eds. Waltzman S.B., Roland J.T., Jr. Cochlear Implants, second ed. Thieme Medical Publishers. New York, 2006. 193–204.Canfarotta M., Dillon M., Brown K., Pillsbury H., Dedmon M., O’Connell B. Insertion Depth and Cochlear Implant Speech Recognition Outcomes: A Comparative Study of 28- and 31.5-mm Lateral Wall Arrays. Otol. Neurotol. 2022. № 43 (2). P. 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003416Dorman M.F., Wilson B.S. The design and function of cochlear implants. Am. Sci. 2004. V. 92. 436–445.Cesur S., Derinsu U. Temporal Processing and Speech Perception Performance in Postlingual Adult Users of Cochlear Implants. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 2020. № 31. P. 129–136. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.19002Forli F., Lazzerini F., Bruschini L., Danti S., Berrettini S. Recent and future developments in cochlear implant technology: review of the literature. Otorhino-laryngo-logy. 2021. V. 71 (3). 196–207. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6302.21.02379-3Chen F., Chen J., Luo X. New discoveries in the benefits and outcomes of cochlear implantation. Neurosci., Sec. Auditory Cognitive Neuroscience. 2022. V. 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.1062582Freyman R.L., Nelson D.A. Frequency Discrimination as a Function of Signal Frequency and Level in Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 1991. V. 34. № 6. P. 1371–1386.Dianzhao X., Jianfen L., Xiuhua Ch. Relationship between the ability to detect frequency changes or temporal gaps and speech perception performance in post-lingual cochlear implant users. Neurosci., Sec. Auditory Cognitive Neuroscience. 2022. V. 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.904724Gelfand S.A. Hearing: An introduction to psychological and physiological acoustics. 5th ed. London. Informa Healthcare, 2009. 311 p.Divenyi P., Shannon R. Auditory time constants unified. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1983. V. 74. S10. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2020735Glennon E., Svirsky M.A., Froemke R.C. Auditory cortical plasticity in cochlear implant users. Neurobiol. 2020. V. 60. P. 108–114.Dorman M.F., Spahr A.J. Speech perception by adults with multichannel implants. Eds: Waltzman S.B., Roland J.T., Jr. Cochlear Implants, second ed. Thieme Medical Publishers. New York, 2006. 193–204.Goldsworthy R. Correlations Between Pitch and Phoneme Perception in Cochlear Implant Users and Their Normal Hearing Peers. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2015. V. 16 (6). P. 797–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-015-0541-9Dorman M.F., Wilson B.S. The design and function of cochlear implants. Am. Sci. 2004. V. 92. 436–445.Kang R., Nimmons G.L., Drennan W., Longnion J., Ruffin C., Nie K., et al. Development and validation of the university of Washington clinical assessment of music perception test. Ear Hear. 2009. V. 30. P. 411–418. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181a61bc0Forli F., Lazzerini F., Bruschini L., Danti S., Berrettini S. Recent and future developments in cochlear implant technology: review of the literature. Otorhino-laryngology. 2021. V. 71 (3). 196–207. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6302.21.02379-3Ketten D.R., Skinner M.W., Wang G., Vannier M.W., Gates G.A., Neely J.G. In vivo measures of cochlear length and insertion depth of nucleus cochlear implant electrode arrays. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 1998. Suppl. 175. P. 1–16.Freyman R.L., Nelson D.A. Frequency Discrimination as a Function of Signal Frequency and Level in Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 1991. V. 34. № 6. P. 1371–1386.Kim S.Y., Jeon S.K., Oh S.H., Lee J.H., Suh M.W., Lee S.Y., Lim H.J., Park M.K. Electrical dynamic range is only weakly associated with auditory performance and speech recognition in long-term users of cochlear implants. Intern. J. Pediatric Otorhinolaryngol. 2018. V. 111. P. 170–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.06.016Gelfand S.A. Hearing: An introduction to psychological and physiological acoustics. 5th ed. London. Informa Healthcare, 2009. 311 p.Koroleva I.V. Kochlearnay implantaciy i sluchorechevay reabilitaciy gluchich detei i vzrosluch [Cochlear implantation and auditory-speech rehabilitation of deaf children and adults]. SPb. KARO, 2009. 186 p. ISBN 978-5-9925-0348-7 (in Russian).Glennon E., Svirsky M.A., Froemke R.C. Auditory cortical plasticity in cochlear implant users. Neurobiol.2020. V. 60. P. 108–114.Koroleva I.V. Vvedenie v kochlearnuy implantaciy [Introduction to cochlear implantation]. SPb. KARO, 2023. 224 p. ISBN: 978-5-9925-1644-9 (in Russian).Goldsworthy R. Correlations Between Pitch and Phoneme Perception in Cochlear Implant Users and Their Normal Hearing Peers. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2015. V. 16 (6). P. 797–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-015-0541-9Limb Ch.J., Alexis Roya A.T. Technological, biological, and acoustical constraints to music perception in cochlear implant users. Hearing Research. 2014. V. 308. P. 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2013.04.009Kang R., Nimmons G.L., Drennan W., Longnion J., Ruffin C., Nie K. Development and validation of the university of Washington clinical assessment of music perception test. Ear Hear. 2009. V. 30. P. 411–418. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181a61bc0Loizou P., Dorman M., Fitzke J. The Effect of Reduced Dynamic Range on Speech Understanding: Implications for Patients with Cochlear Implants. Ear and Hearing. 2000. V. 21 (1). P. 25–31.Ketten D.R., Skinner M.W., Wang G., Vannier M.W., Gates G.A., Neely J.G. In vivo measures of cochlear length and insertion depth of nucleus cochlear implant electrode arrays. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 1998. Suppl. 175. P. 1–16.Meredith T., Nicole T., Charles J. Assessment and improvement of sound quality in cochlear implant users. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology. 2017. V. 2. Р. 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.71Kim S.Y., Jeon S.K., Oh S.H., Lee J.H., Suh M.W., Lee S.Y., Lim H.J., Park M.K. Electrical dynamic range is only weakly associated with auditory performance and speech recognition in long-term users of cochlear implants. Intern. J. Pediat. Otorhinolaryngol. 2018. V. 111. P. 170–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.06.016Nikakhlagh S., Saki N., Karimi M., Mirahmadi S., Rostami M. R. Evaluation of Loudness Perception Performance in Cochlear Implant Users. Biomed Pharmacol J. 2015. V. 8. http://biomedpharmajournal.org/?p=2280>Limb Ch.J., Alexis Roya A.T. Technological, biological, and acoustical constraints to music perception in cochlear implant users. Hearing Research. 2014. V. 308. P. 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.heares.2013.04.009Plomp R., Bouman M. Relation between Hearing Threshold and Duration for Tone Pulses. J Acoust Soc Am. 1959. V. 31. P. 749–758. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1907781Loizou P., Dorman M., Fitzke J. The Effect of Reduced Dynamic Range on Speech Understanding: Implications for Patients with Cochlear Implants. Ear and Hearing. 2000. V. 21 (1). P. 25–31.Pralus A., Hermann R., Cholvy F., Aguera P., Moulin A. Rapid Assessment of Non-Verbal Auditory Perception in Normal-Hearing Participants and Cochlear Implant Users. J. Clin. Med. 2021. V. 10 (10). P. 90–93. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10102093.Meredith T., Nicole T., Charles J. Assessment and improvement of sound quality in cochlear implant users. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology. 2017. V. 2. P. 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.71Pudov V.I., Stefanovich M.A. Vospriytie muziki polizovatelymi kochlearnuch implantov [Perception of music by cochlear implant users]. Rossiiskay otorinolaringologiy [Russian Otorhinolaryngology]. 2010. № 2 (45). P. 114–119 (in Russian).Nikakhlagh S., Saki N., Karimi M., Mirahmadi S., Rostami M. R. Evaluation of Loudness Perception Performance in Cochlear Implant Users. Biomed Pharmacol J. 2015. V. 8. http://biomedpharmajournal.org/?p=2280>Rawool V.W. A temporal processing primer. Hearing Review. 2006. V. 13 (5). P. 30–34. hearingreview.com.Plomp R., Bouman M. Relation between Hearing Threshold and Duration for Tone Pulses. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1959. V. 31. P. 749–758. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1907781Reiss L.A., Turner C.W., Erenberg S.R., Gantz B.J. Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2007. V. 8 (2). P. 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-007-0077-8Pralus A., Hermann R., Cholvy F., Aguera P., Moulin A. Rapid Assessment of Non-Verbal Auditory Perception in Normal-Hearing Participants and Cochlear Implant Users. J. Clin. Med. 2021. V. 10(10). P. 90–93. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10102093Sharma S.D.; Cushing S.L., Papsin B.C., Gordon K.A. Hearing and speech benefits of cochlear implantation in children: A review of the literature. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2020. V. 133. 109984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.109984Rawool V.W. A temporal processing primer. Hearing Review. 2006. V. 13 (5). P. 30–34.Sharma A., Dorman M. Central auditory development in children with cochlear implants: clinical implications. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2006. V. 64. P. 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1159/000094646Reiss L.A., Turner C.W., Erenberg S.R., Gantz B.J. Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2007. V. 8 (2). P. 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-007-0077-8Stakhovskaya O., Sridhar D., Bonham B.H., Leake P.A. Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2007. V. 8. P. 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-007-0076-9Sharma S.D., Cushing S.L., Papsin B.C., Gordon K.A. Hearing and speech benefits of cochlear implantation in children: A review of the literature. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2020. V. 133. 109984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.109984Stefanovich M.A., Pudov V.I. Osobennosty sluchovuch oschuschenii pri elektrodnom protezirovanii [Features of auditory sensations during electrode prosthetics]. 2013. 126 p. ISBN: 978-3-659-40813-7 (in Russian).Sharma A., Dorman M. Central auditory development in children with cochlear implants: clinical implications. Adv. Otorhinolaryngol. 2006. V. 64. P. 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1159/000094646Tavartkiladze G.A. Sovremennoe sostoynie i perspektivu razvitiy kochlearnoi implantacii [The current state and prospects of the development of cochlear implantation]. Vestnik otorinolaringologii [Vestnik Oto-Rino-Laringologii]. 2015. № 80 (3). P. 4–9. https://doi.org/10.17116/otorino20158034-9 (in Russian).Stakhovskaya O., Sridhar D., Bonham B.H., Leake P.A. Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. J. Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007. V. 8. P. 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-007-0076-9Turgeon C., Champoux F., Lepore F., Ellemberg D. Deficits in auditory frequency discrimination and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Cochlear Implants Int. 2015. V. 16 (2). P. 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1179/1754762814Y.0000000091 PMID: 25117940Turgeon C., Champoux F., Lepore F., Ellemberg D. Deficits in auditory frequency discrimination and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Cochlear Implants Int. 2015. V. 16 (2). P. 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1179/1754762814Y.0000000091PMID: 25117940Wagner L., Altindal R., Plontke S.K. et al. Pure tone discrimination with cochlear implants and filter-band spread. Sci Rep. 2021. V. 11. 20236. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99799-4Wilson B., Dorman M. Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future. Hearing Research. 2008. V. 242. P. 3–21.Wilson B.S., Finley C.C., Lawson D.T., Wolford R.D., Eddington D.K., Rabinowitz W.M. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature. 1991. V. 352. P. 236–238.Winn M., Won J., Moon I. Assessment of spectral and temporal resolution in cochlear implant users using psychoacoustic discrimination and speech cue categorization. Ear. Hear. 2016. V. 37 (6). P. 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000328Wright A., Davis A., Bredberg G., Ulehlova L., Spencer H. Hair cell distributions in the normal human cochlea. Acta Otolaryngol. 1987. Suppl. 444. P. 1–48.Zeng F., Tang Q., Lu T. Abnormal Pitch Perception Produced by Cochlear Implant Stimulation. PLoS ONE. 2014. V. 9 (2). 8 р. e88662. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088662Zeng F., Tang Q., Lu T. Abnormal Pitch Perception Produced by Cochlear Implant Stimulation. PLoS ONE. 2014. V. 9 (2). 8 p. e88662. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088662Zhang F., Underwood G., Mc Guire K., Liang C., Moore D., Jie Fu Q. Frequency change detection and speech perception in cochlear implant users. Hearing Research. 2019. V. 379. P. 12–20.Zhang F., Underwood G., Mc Guire K., Liang C., Moore D., Jie Fu Q. Frequency change detection and speech perception in cochlear implant users. Hearing Research. 2019. V. 379. P. 12–20.