Psychophysical recovery from pulse-train forward masking in electric hearing

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.