The identification of consonants and vowels by cochlear implant patients using a 6-channel continuous interleaved sampling processor and by normal- hearing subjects using simulations of processors with two to nine channels

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 162-166

  Dorman, Michael F ^a,b   Loizou, Philipos C ^c  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONSONANT; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TECHNOLOGY; VOWEL;

ADULT; AGED; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; DEAFNESS; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHONETICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 0031969553     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199804000-00008     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Dorman, M. F., Dankowski, K., Smith, L., & McCandless, G. (1989). Identification of synthetic vowels by patients using the Symbion multichannel cochlear implant. Ear and Hearing, 10, 40-43.
2. Dorman, M. F., Loizou, P., & Rainey, D. (1997). Speech recognition as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102, 2403-2411.
3. Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L., Clark, M., & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3099-3111.
4. Lawson, D., Wilson, B., & Finley, C. (1993). New processing strategies for multichannel cochlear prostheses. In J. H. J. Allum, D. J. Allum-Mecklenburg, F. P. Harris, & R. Probst (Eds.), Progress in brain research, 97 (pp. 313-321). New York: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
5. Miller, G., & Nicely, P. (1955). Analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 338-353.
6. Shannon, R., Zeng, F-G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303-304.
7. Tyler, R., Gantz, B., Woodworth, G., Parkinson, A, Lowder, M., & Schum, L. (1996). Initial independent results with the Clarion cochlear implant. Ear and Hearing, 17, 528-536.
8. Tyler, R., Preece, J., & Tye-Murray, N. (1986). The Iowa phoneme and sentence tests. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.
9. Van Tassel, D., Greenfield, D., Logemann, J., & Nelson, D. (1992). Temporal cues for consonant recognition: Training, talker generalization and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92, 1247-1257.
10. Wilson, B. S., Finley, C., Lawson, D., Wolford, R., Eddington, D., & Rabinowitz, W. (1991). Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature, 352, 236-238.
11. Wilson, B., Lawson, D., & Zerbi, M. (1995). Advances in coding strategies for cochlear implants. Advances in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 9, 105-129.
12. Zierhofer, C., Peter, O., Bril, S., Pohl, P., Hochmair-Desoyer, I., & Hochmair, E. (1994). A multichannel cochlear implant system for high-rate pulsatile stimulation strategies. In I. Hochmair-Desoyer and E. Hochmair (Eds.), Advances in cochlear implants (pp. 204-207). Mantz: International Interscience Seminars.