Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 40, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 1201-1215

  Fishman, Kim E ^a   Shannon, Robert V ^a   Slattery, William H ^a  

^a HOUSE EAR INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Electrical stimulation; Electrode number; Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CELL SURVIVAL; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; ELECTRODE; HUMAN; NERVE CELL MEMBRANE POTENTIAL; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH DISORDER; SPEECH REHABILITATION; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 0030864174     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4005.1201     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Boothroyd, A., Hanin, L., & Hnath, T. (1985). CUNY laser videodisk of everyday sentences. New York: Speech and Hearing Sciences Research Center, City University of New York.
2. Brill, S. (1996). Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate in the COMBI 40+. Vienna, Austria: International Workshop on Cochlear Implants, October 24-25.
3. Chatterjee, M., & Shannon, R. V. (1997). Forward masking patterns in electrical stimulation: Dependence on stimulus parameters. In Abstracts of the Twentieth Midwinter Meeting, Association for Research in Otolaryngology, p. 306.
4. Cochlear Corporation. (1989). Audiologist handbook. Englewood, CO: Author.
5. Collins, L., Zwolan, T., O'Neill, J., & Wakefield, G. (1994). Analysis of electrode pair confusions and implications for speech recognition in cochlear implant listeners. In Abstracts of the Seventeenth Midwinter Meeting, Association for Research in Otolaryngology, p. 161.
6. Cox, R., & Gilmore C. (1990). Development of the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP). Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 343-357.
7. Dillier, N., Bogli, H., & Lai, W. K. (1995). Electrodographic analysis and field evaluation of the SPEAK coding strategy. Annals of Otology Rhinology and Laryngology (Suppl. 166), 104, 354-356.
8. Dorman, M. F., Dankowski, K., McCandless, G., & Smith, L. M. (1989). Consonant recognition as a function of the number of channels of stimulation by patients who use the Symbion cochlear implant. Ear and Hearing, 10, 288-291.
9. Eddington, D. K., Dobelle, W. H., Brackmann, D. E., Mladevosky, M. G., & Parkin, J. L. (1978). Auditory prosthesis research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man. Annals of Otology Rhinology and Laryngology, 87 (Suppl. 53), 1-39.
10. Fu, Q.-J., Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F.-G., & Chatterjee, M. (1996). Electrode interactions measured by loudness summation in cochlear implant listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 2631.
11. Geier, L., & Norton, S. (1992). The effects of limiting the number of Nucleus 22 cochlear implant electrodes programmed on speech perception. Ear and Hearing, 13, 340-348.
12. Hanekom, J. J., & Shannon, R. V. (1997). Gap detection thresholds as a measure of spread of excitation in cochlear electrical stimulation. In Abstracts of the Twentieth Midwinter Meeting, Association for Research in Otolaryngology, p. 307.
13. Hill, F. J., McRae, L. P., & McClellan, R. P. (1968). Speech recognition as a function of channel capacity in a discrete set of channels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 44, 13-18.
14. Holmes, A., Kemker, F. J., & Merwin, G. (1987). The effects of varying the number of cochlear implant electrodes on speech perception. American Journal of Otology, 8, 240-246.
15. House, W. F. (1994). Cochlear implants: It's time to rethink. American Journal of Otology, 15, 573-587.
16. Kileny, P., Zimmerman-Phillips, S., Zwolan T., & Kemink, J. (1992). Effects of channel number and place of stimulation on performance with the cochlear corporation multichannel implant. American Journal of Otology, 13, 117-123.
17. Lawson, D., Wilson, B., & Finley, C. (1993). New processing strategies for multichannel cochlear prostheses. In J. A. Allum, D. J. Allum-Mecklenburg, F. P. Harris, & R. Probst (Eds.), Natural and artificial control of hearing and balance (Progress in Brain Research, Vol. 97, pp. 313-321). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
18. Lawson, D. T., Wilson, B. S., Zerbi, M., & Finley, C. C. (1996). Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Third Quarterly Progress Report (NIH Contract N01-DC-5-2103).
19. McDermott, H. J. (1989). An advanced multiple channel cochlear implant. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 36, 789-797.
20. McDermott, H. J., McKay, C. M., Vandali, A. E., & Clark, G. M. (1992). A comparison of speech perception of cochlear implantees using the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor (SMSP) and the MSP (Multipeak) processor. Acta Otolaryngologica (Stockholm) 112, 752-761.
21. Miller, G., & Nicely, P. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 27, 338-352.
22. National Institutes of Health. (1995). Concensus statement: Cochlear implants in adults and children. Journal of the American Medical Association, 274, 1955-1961.
23. Remez, R. E., Rubin, P. E., Pisoni, D. B., & Carrell, T. D. (1981). Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science, 212, 947-950.
24. Rosen, S. (1992). Temporal information in speech and its relevance for cochlear implants. In Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London (Series B Biological Sciences), 336, 367.
25. Rosen, S., Walliker, J., Brimacombe, J. A., & Edgerton, B. J. (1989). Prosodic and segmental aspects of speech perception with the House/3M single channel implant. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 93-111.
26. Shannon, R. V. (1993). Psychophysics of electrical stimulation. In R. S. Tyler (Ed.), Cochlear implants: Audiological foundations (pp. 357-388). San Diego: Singular.
27. Shannon, R., Zeng, F.-G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303-304.
28. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F.-G, & Wygonski, J. (1996). Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 2692.
29. Skinner, M. W., Clark, G. M., Whitford, L. A., Seligman, P., Staller, S., Shipp, D., Shallop, J., Everingham, C., Menapace, C., Arndt, P., Antogenelli, T., Brimacombe, J., Pijl, S., Daniels, P., George, C., McDermott, H., & Beiter, A. (1994). Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 channel cochlear implant. American Journal of Otology, 15 (Suppl. 2), 15-27.
30. Tillman, T. W., & Carhart, R. (1966). An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words (Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6, Technical Report No. SAM-TR-66-55). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.
31. Turner, C. W., Souza, P. E., & Forget, L. N. (1995). Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 97, 2568-2576.
32. Tyler, R., Abbas, P., Tye-Murray, N., Gantz, B., Knutson, J., McCabe, B., Lansing, C., Brown, C., Woodworth, G., Hinrichs, J., & Kuk, F. (1988). Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: Audiologic assessment and predictors of performance. Laryngoscope, 98, 1100-1106.
33. Tyler, R. S., Preece, J. P., & Lowder, M. W. (1987). The Iowa audiovisual speech perception laser videodisc (Laser Videodisc and Laboratory Report). Iowa City: Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics.
34. Van Tasell, D. J., Soli, S. D., Kirby, V. M., & Widin, G. P. (1987). Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 82, 1152-1161.
35. Van Tasell, D. J., Greenfield, D. G., Logemann, J. J., & Nelson, D. A. (1992). Temporal cues for consonant recognition: Training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 92, 1247-1257.
36. Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., Lawson, D. T., Wolford, R. D., Eddington, D. K., & Rabinowitz, W. M. (1991). New levels of speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature, 352, 236-238.