Effects of noise and noise suppression onspeech perception by cochlear implantusers

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 1992, Pages 263-271

  Hochberg, Irving ^a   Boothroyd, Arthur ^a   Weiss, Mark ^a   Hellman, Sharon ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONSONANT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; MALE; NOISE; NOISE REDUCTION; PHONEME; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SOUND INTENSITY; SPEECH; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VOWEL;

ADULT; AGED; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGE; NOISE; PHONETICS; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, P.H.S.;

EID: 0026672224     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: 15384667     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199208000-00008     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Blamey PJ, Dowell RC, and Clark GM. Acoustic parameters measured by a formant-estimating speech processor for a multiplechannel cochlear implant.J Acoust SOC Am 1987;82:38-47.
2. Boothroyd A.Developments in speech audiometry.Br J Audio1 1968; 2:3-10
3. Boothroyd A.Auditory perception of speech contrasts by subjects with sensorineural hearing loss.J Speech Hear Res 1984;27:134-144.
4. Boothroyd A and Nittrouer S.Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition.J Acoust SOC Am 1988; 84:101-114.
5. Boothroyd A, Hnath-Chisolm T, Hanin L, and Kishon-Rabin L. Voice fundamental frequency as an auditory supplement to the speechreading of sentences. Ear Hear 1988;9:306-312.
6. Cohen N, Waltzman S, and Shapiro W.Telephone speech comprehension with use of the Nucleus cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhino1 Laryngol 1989;98:8-I1.
7. Cupples J. Speech enhancement for automatic speech recognition.Proceedings of the Air Force Electronics Communication Association Western Conference, 1984
8. Dirks D, Morgan D, and Dubno J.A procedure for quantifying the effects of noise on speech recognition.J Speech Hear Res 1982; 47:114-123.
9. Dowell RC, Seligman PM, Blamey PJ, and Clark GM. Speech perception using a two-formant 22-electrode cochlear prosthesis in quiet and in noise.Acta Otolaryngol 1987;104:439-446.
10. Neuman A, Mills RC, and Schwander TJ. Noise reduction: effects on consonant perception by normal hearing listeners.Paper presented at ASHA convention, Washington, DC 1985.
11. NIH Consensus Development Conference.Cochlear implants.Bethesda MD NINCDS,1989.
12. Pfeffer E and Ross M. Subjective responses to an automatic signal processor (ASP) hearing aid.Paper presented at ASHA convention New Orleans, 1987.
13. Plomp R. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids.J Acoust SOCA m 1978;63:533-549.
14. Skinner MW, Holden LK, Holden TA, Dowell RC, Seligman PM, Brimacombe JA, and Beiter AL.Performance of postlingually deaf adults with the wearable speech processor (WSP 111) and minispeech processor (MSP) of the Nucleus mult-electrode cochlearimplant.Ear Hear 1991;12:3-22.
15. Thorton AR and Raffin MJM. Speech discrimination scores modeledas a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res 1978;21:507-5 18.
16. Tong YC, Blarney PJ, Dowell RC, and Clark GM.Psychophysical studies evaluating the feasibility of a speech processing strategy for a multiple-channel cochlear implant.J Acoust SOC Am 1983;74:73-80
17. Tye-Murray N, Lowder MW, and Tyler RS. Comparison of the FOF2 and FOFl F2 processing strategies for the Cochlear Corporation Cochlear Implant.Ear Hear 1990;11:195-200.
18. Van Tasell DJ, Larsen SY, and Fabry DA. Effects of an adaptive filter hearing aid on speech recognition in noise by hearing-impaired subjects.Ear Hear 1988;9:15-21.
19. Weiss M and Aschkenasy E. Study and development of the INTEL technique for improving speech intelligibility. Final Report NSCm 4-23.Nicolet Scientific Corp.,1974.