Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 60-74

  Zeng, Fan Gang ^a   Galvin III, John J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b HOUSE EAR INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CASE REPORT; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; FEMALE; HEARING ACUITY; HUMAN; MALE; NOISE; PHONEME; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION;

ADULT; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; DEAFNESS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PHONETICS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0032965792     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199902000-00006     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Boothroyd, A., Erickson, F. N., & Medwetsky, L. (1994). The hearing aid input: A phonemic approach to assessing the spectral distribution of speech. Ear and Hearing, 6, 432-442.
2. Brill, S. M., Gstottner, W., Helms, J., Ilberg, C. V., Baumgartner, W., Muller, J., & Kiefer, J. (1997). Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast Continuous Interleaved Sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+. American Journal of Otology, 18, S104-S106.
3. Byrne, D., Dillon, H., Tran, K., Arlinger, S., Wilbraham, K., Cox, R., Hagerman, B., Hetu, R., Kei, J., Lui, C., Kiessling, J., Nasser Kotby, M., Nasser, N. H. A., El Kholy, W. A. H., Nakanishi, Y., Oyer, H., Powell, R., Stephens, D., Meredith, R., Sirimanna, T., Tavartkiladze, G., Frolenkov, G., Westerman, S., & Ludvigsen, C. (1994). An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2108-2120.
4. Borg, E., & Zakrisson, J.-E. (1973). Stapedius reflex and speech features. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 54, 525-527.
5. Cochlear Corporation (1995). Technical reference manual. Englewood, Colorado.
6. Dawson, P. W., Skok, M., & Clark, G. M. (1997). The effect of loudness imbalance between electrodes in cochlear implant users. Ear and Hearing, 18, 156-165.
7. Dillier, N., Battmer, R. D., Doring, W. H., & Muller-Deile, J. (1995). Multi-centric field evaluation of a new speech coding strategy for cochlear implants. Audiology, 34, 145-159.
8. Dorman, M. F., Loizou, P. C., & Rainey, D. (1997). Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2403-2411.
9. Eddington, D. K. (1980). Speech discrimination in deaf subjects with cochlear implants. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 68, 885-891.
10. Eddington, D. K., Dobelle, W. H., Brackmann, D. E., Mladejovsky, D. E., & Parkin, J. L. (1978). Auditory prostheses research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, 87(Suppl. 53), 5-39.
11. Fishman, K., Shannon, R. V., & Slattery, W. H. (1997). Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 40, 1201-1215.
12. Fletcher, H. (1953). Speech and hearing in communication. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.
13. Fu Q.-J., & Shannon, R. V. (1998). Effects of amplitude non-linearity on phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 2570-2577.
14. Fu Q.-J., Shannon, R. V., & Wang, X. (in press). Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: Acoustic and electric hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
15. Hickson, L., & Byrne, D. (1997). Consonant perception in quiet: Effect of increasing the consonant-vowel ratio with compression amplification. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 8, 322-332.
16. Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3099-3111.
17. Hochberg, I., Boothroyd, A., Weiss, M., & Hellman, S. (1992). Effects of noise and noise suppression on speech perception by cochlear implant users. Ear and Hearing, 13, 263-271.
18. Hudspeth, A. J. (1997). How hearing happens. Neuron, 19, 947-950.
19. House, W. F. (1978). The clinical value of single electrode system in auditory prostheses. Otolaryngology Clinicians of North America, 11, 201-208.
20. Lippmann, R. P., Braida, L. D., & Durlach, N. I. (1981). Study of multi-channel amplitude compression and linear compression for persons with sensorineural hearing loss. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69, 524-534.
21. McDermott, H. J., McKay, C. M., & Vandali, A. E. (1992). A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/ Nucleus Limited Multichannel cochlear implant. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 91, 3367-3371.
22. Merzenich, M. M., Rebscher, S. J., Loeb, G. E., Byers, C. L., & Schindler, R. A. (1984). The UCSF cochlear implant project. State of development. Advances in Audiology, 2, 119-144.
23. Muller-Deile, J., Schmidt, B. J., & Rudert, H. (1995). Effects of noise on speech discrimination in cochlear implant patients. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology. Supplement, 166, 303-306.
24. Nelson, D. A., Schmitz, J. L., Donaldson, G. S., Viemeister, N. F., & Javel, E. (1996). Intensity discrimination as a function of stimulus level with electric stimulation. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 100, 2393-2414.
25. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F.-G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303-304.
26. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F.-G., & Wygonski, J. (1992). Speech recognition using only temporal cues. In M. E. H. Schouten (Ed.), The auditory processing of speech: From sounds to words (pp. 263-274). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
27. Skinner, M. W., Clark, G. M., Whitford, L. A., Seligman, P. M., Staller, S. J., Shipp, D. B., Shallop, J. , Everingham, C., Menapace, C. M., Arndt, P. L., Antogenelli, T., Brimacombe, J. A., Pijl, S., Daniels, P., George, C. R., McDermott, H. J., & Beiter, A. L. (1994). Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 channel cochlear implant system. The American Journal of Otology, 15(Suppl. 2), 15-27.
28. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., & Holden, T. A. (1997). Parameter selection to optimize speech recognition with the Nucleus implant. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 117, 188-195.
29. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A., Demorest, M. E., & Fourakis, M. S. (1997). Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 3766-3782.
30. Souza, P. E., & Turner, C. W. (1996). Effect of single-channel compression on temporal speech information. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 901-911.
31. Taylor, M. M., & Creelman, C. D. (1967). PEST: Efficient estimates on probability functions. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 41, 782-787.
32. 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.
33. Van Tasell, D. J., & Trine, T. D. (1996). Effects of single-band syllabic amplitude compression on temporal speech information in nonsense syllables and in sentences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 912-922.
34. Viemeister, N. F. (1988). Intensity coding and the dynamic range problem. Hearing Research, 34, 267-274.
35. Wilson, B. S. (1997). The future of cochlear implants. British Journal of Audiology, 31, 205-225.
36. Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., Lawson, D. T., Wolford, R. D., Eddington, D. K., & Rabinowitz, W. M. (1991). Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature, 352, 236-238.
37. Zeng, F.-G., Galvin, J. J., & Zhang, C. Y. (1998). Encoding loudness by electric stimulation of the auditory nerve. NeuroReport, 9, 1845-1848.
38. Zeng, F.-G., & Shannon, R. V. (1992). Loudness balance between acoustically and electrically stimulated ears. Hearing Research, 60, 231-235.
39. Zeng, F.-G., & Shannon, R. V. (1994). Loudness-coding mechanisms inferred from electric stimulation of the human auditory system. Science, 264, 564-566.
40. Zeng, F.-G., & Shannon, R. V. (1995). Loudness of simple and complex stimuli in electric hearing. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 104(Suppl. 166), 235-238.
41. Zeng, F.-G., Shannon, R. V., & Hellman, W. S. (1998). Physiological processes underlying psychophysical laws. In A. R. Palmer, A. Rees, A. Q. Summer-field, & R. Meddis (Eds.), Psychophysical and physiological advances in hearing (pp. 473-481). London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.
42. Zeng, F.-G., & Turner, C. W. (1990). Recognition of voiceless fricatives by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 440-449.
43. Zhang, C. Y., & Zeng, F.-G. (1997). Loudness of dynamic stimuli in acoustic and electric hearing. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2925-2934.