f Effects of Number of Filters and Frequency Cutoff in Continuous Interleaved Sampling and Frequency Amplitude Modulation Encoding Schemes in Cochlear Implant
FOREX Press I. J. of Electrical & Electronics Research
Support Open Access
  • Home/
  • IJEER-120335

Research Article |

Effects of Number of Filters and Frequency Cutoff in Continuous Interleaved Sampling and Frequency Amplitude Modulation Encoding Schemes in Cochlear Implant

Author(s): Lydia Sari*, Mathieu Naud, Syah Alam and Indra Surjati

Published In : International Journal of Electrical and Electronics Research (IJEER)        Volume 12, Issue 3

Publisher : FOREX Publication

Published : 30 August 2024

e-ISSN : 2347-470X

Page(s) : 1010-1017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37391/IJEER.120335

Abstract

Cochlear implants are devices designed to transform sound into electrical signals perceived by the brain, making them vital prostheses for deaf individuals. This study examines two schemes used in cochlear implants, namely Continuous Interleaved Sampling (CIS) and Frequency Amplitude Modulation Encoding (FAME), to compare their performance while varying the number of bandpass filters and cutoff frequencies used. Both schemes were simulated using 8 and 5 bandpass filters, and cutoff frequencies of 2000 Hz and 200 Hz. Results show that the CIS scheme can maintain signal intelligibility despite the loss of some frequency components when the number of bandpass filters is lowered. Conversely, FAME retains more frequency details but presents perceptible delays. With a cut off frequency of 200 Hz, signals processed with CIS loses intelligibility significantly, whereas FAME-processed signals remain intelligible both at 200 Hz and 2000 Hz cut off frequencies. It is therefore concluded that FAME can provide better cochlear implant performance despite the lower number of bandpass filters and lower frequency cutoff.

Keywords: cochlear implant, continuous interleaved sampling, frequency, amplitude modulation encoding, bandpass filter.




Lydia Sari*, Department of Electrical Engineering, Universitas Trisakti, Indonesia; Email: lydia_sari@trisakti.ac.id

Mathieu Naud, Polytech Nantes Graduate School of Engineering of Nantes University; Email: mathieu.naud@etu.univ-nantes.fr

Syah Alam, Department of Electrical Engineering, Universitas Trisakti, Indonesia; Email: syah_alam@trisakti.ac.id

Indra Surjati, Department of Electrical Engineering, Universitas Trisakti, Indonesia; Email: indra@trisakti.ac.id

    [1] I. Hochmair et al., “MED-EL Cochlear Implants: State of the Art and a Glimpse Into the Future,” Trends Amplif, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 201–219, 2006, doi: 10.1177/1084713806296720.
    [2] M. A. Paun, V. A. Paun, and V. P. Paun, “Electrical signal modeling in cochlear implants. Study of temperature and humidity effects,” Micromachines (Basel), vol. 12, no. 7, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.3390/mi12070785.
    [3] R. R. S. Sarreal, D. T. Blake, and P. T. Bhatti, “Development and Characterization of a Micromagnetic Alternative to Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 30, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2022.3193342.
    [4] R. Ghosh and J. H. L. Hansen, “Bilateral Cochlear Implant Processing of Coding Strategies With CCi-MOBILE, an Open-Source Research Platform,” IEEE/ACM Trans Audio Speech Lang Process, vol. 31, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TASLP.2023.3267608.
    [5] M. Y. Srinivas1, M. P. Darwin2, and V. Sailja3, “Continuous Interleaved Sampled (CIS) Signal Processing Strategy for Cochlear Implants MATLAB Simulation Program,” Int J Sci Eng Res, vol. 3, 2012, [Online]. Available: http://www.ijser.org
    [6] P. C. Loizou, “Mimicking the Human Ear,” IEEE Signal Process Mag, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 101–130, 1998.
    [7] H. Meister, M. Walger, R. Lang-Roth, and V. Müller, “Voice fundamental frequency differences and speech recognition with noise and speech maskers in cochlear implant recipients,” J Acoust Soc Am, vol. 147, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1121/10.0000499.
    [8] F. G. Zeng, “Celebrating the one millionth cochlear implants,” 2022. doi: 10.1121/10.0012825.
    [9] R. P. Carlyon and T. Goehring, “Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update,” 2021. doi: 10.1007/s10162-021-00811-5.
    [10] G. S. Stickney, F.-G. Zeng, R. Litovsky, and P. Assmann, “Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers,” J Acoust Soc Am, vol. 116, no. 2, 2004, doi: 10.1121/1.1772399.
    [11] Q.-J. Fu and R. V. Shannon, “Phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users as a function of signal-to-noise ratio and nonlinear amplitude mapping,” J Acoust Soc Am, vol. 106, no. 2, 1999, doi: 10.1121/1.427031.
    [12] N. K. Nagaraj, “Amplitude modulation detection with concurrent frequency modulation,” J Acoust Soc Am, vol. 140, no. 3, pp. EL251–EL255, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1121/1.4962374.
    [13] S. Tabibi and H. Sadjedi, “A new adaptive frequency and amplitude modulation encoding in multi channel cochlear implant,” in Proceedings - 2011 UKSim 13th International Conference on Modelling and Simulation, UKSim 2011, 2011, pp. 337–340. doi: 10.1109/UKSIM.2011.70.
    [14] D. Gupta, P. Mathur, and P. Tewari, “Simulated output of Continuous Interleaved Sampling and Frequency Amplitude Modulation Encoding techniques used in Cochlear Implant,” International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 680–686, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.35940/ijrte.D7272.018520.
    [15] D. Gupta, P. Mathur, and P. Tewari, “Use of preprocessor with frequency amplitude modulation encoding (Fame) for speech quality enhancement in cochlear implant to aid hearing impairment,” International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 5849–5855, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.35940/ijrte.C5488.098319.
    [16] N. K. Nagaraj, “Amplitude modulation detection with concurrent frequency modulation,” J Acoust Soc Am, vol. 140, no. 3, pp. EL251–EL255, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1121/1.4962374.
    [17] K. L. Whiteford, H. A. Kreft, and A. J. Oxenham, “The role of cochlear place coding in the perception of frequency modulation,” Elife, vol. 9, 2020, doi: 10.7554/ELIFE.58468.
    [18] J. Wouters, H. J. McDermott, and T. Francart, “Sound coding in cochlear implants: From electric pulses to hearing,” IEEE Signal Process Mag, vol. 32, no. 2, 2015, doi: 10.1109/MSP.2014.2371671.
    [19] Y. Srinivas, P. Darwin, and V. Sailja, “Continuous Interleaved Sampled (CIS) Signal Processing Strategy for Cochlear Implants MATLAB Simulation Program,” Int J Sci Eng Res, vol. 3, 2012, [Online]. Available: http://www.ijser.org
    [20] S. Tabibi and H. Sadjedi, “A new adaptive frequency and amplitude modulation encoding in multi channel cochlear implant,” in Proceedings - 2011 UKSim 13th International Conference on Modelling and Simulation, UKSim 2011, 2011. doi: 10.1109/UKSIM.2011.70.
    [21] M. Körtje, T. Stöver, U. Baumann, and T. Weissgerber, “Impact of processing-latency induced interaural delay and level discrepancy on sensitivity to interaural level differences in cochlear implant users,” European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, vol. 280, no. 12, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s00405-023-08013-w.

Lydia Sari, Mathieu Naud, Syah Alam and Indra Surjati (2024), Effects of Number of Filters and Frequency Cutoff in Continuous Interleaved Sampling and Frequency Amplitude Modulation Encoding Schemes in Cochlear Implant. IJEER 12(3), 1010-1017. DOI: 10.37391/IJEER.120335.