Holes in hearing

JARO - Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 185-199

  Shannon, Robert V ^a,b   Galvin III, John J ^a   Baskent, Deniz ^b  

^a HOUSE EAR INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b University of Southern California ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Deafness; Hearing aids; Hearing impairment; Hearing loss; Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA; CONSONANT; ELECTRODE; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; MALE; NERVE INJURY; NOISE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; TONOTOPY; VOWEL; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; SPEECH; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADULT; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; DEAFNESS; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 0036615286     PISSN: 15253961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s101620020021     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. American National Standards Institute (1997) Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility, Index, S3.5.
2. BREEUWER M, PLOMP R. Speechreading supplemented with frequency-selective sound-pressure information. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 76:686-691, 1984.
3. BREEUWER M, PLOMP R. Speechreading supplemented with formant frequency information from voiced speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 77:314-317, 1985.
4. BREEUWER M, PLOMP R. Speechreading supplemented with auditorily-presented speech parameters. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 79:481-499, 1986.
5. Cochlear Corporation (1995) Technical Reference Manual. Englewood, CO.
6. DORMAN MF, LOIZOU PC. Identification of consonants and vowels by cochlear implant patients using a 6-channel continuous inter-leaved sampling processor and by normal-hearing subjects using simulations processors with two to nine channels. Ear Hear. 19:162-166, 1998.
7. DORMAN MF, LOIZOU PC, RAINEY D. Simulating the effect of cochlearimplant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102:2993-2996, 1997, DOI: 10.1121/1.420354.
8. EDDINGTON DK, RABINOWITZ WR, TIERNEY J, NOEL V, WHEARTY M (1997) Speech Processors for Auditory Prostheses, 8th Quarterly Progress Report, NIH Contract N01-DC-6-2100.
9. EISENBERG L, SHANNON RV, MARTINEZ AS, WYGONSKI J, BOOTHROYD A. Speech recognition with reduced spectral cues as a function of age. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107:2704-2710, 2000, DOI: 10.1121/1.428656.
10. FISHMAN K, SHANNON RV, SLATTERY WH. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J. Speech Hear Res. 40:1201-1215, 1997.
11. FLETCHER H, STEINBERG JC. Articulation testing methods. Bell Systems Tech. J. 8:806-854, 1929.
12. FRENCH NR, STIENBERG JC. Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 19:90-119, 1947.
13. FRIESEN L, SHANNON RV, BASKENT D, WANG X. Speech recognition in noise asa function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110:1150-1163, 2001.
14. FU Q-J, SHANNON RV, WANG X. Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: Acoustic and electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104:3586-3596, 1998.
15. FU Q-J, SHANNON RV. Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105:1889-1900, 1999, DOI: 10.1121/1.426725.
16. FU Q-J, SHANNON RV. Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition in cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107:589-597, 2000, DOI: 10.1121/1.428325.
17. Fu Q-J, SHANNON RV, GALVIN J. Performance over time of Nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners wearing speech processor with a shifted frequency-to-electrode assignment. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (submitted), 2002.
18. GREENWOOD DD. A cochlear frequency-position function for several species-29 years later. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87:2592-2605, 1990.
19. HILLENBRAND J, GETTY L, CLARK M, WHEELER K. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97:3099-3111, 1994.
20. HOGAN CA, TURNER CW. High-frequency audibility: Benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104:432-441, 1998, DOI: 10.1121/1.423247.
21. LIPPMANN RP. Accurate consonant perception without mid-frequency energy. IEEE Trans. Speech Audio. Proc. 4:66-69, 1996.
22. McDERMOTT HJ. An advanced multiple channel cochlear implant. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 36:789-797, 1989, DOI: 10.1109/10.32112.
23. MILLER G, NICELY P. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 27:338-352, 1955.
24. MOORE BCJ. Dead regions in the cochlea: Diagnosis, perceptual consequences, and implications for the fitting of hearing aids. Trends Amplific. 5:1-34, 2001.
25. MOORE BCJ, ALCÁNTARA JI. The use of psychophysical tuning curves to explore dead regions in the cochlea. Ear Hear. 22:268-278, 2001.
26. MOORE BCJ, GLASBERG BR. A model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Aud. Neurosci. 3:289-311, 1997.
27. MOORE BCJ, Huss M, VICKERS DA, GLASBERG BR, ALCÁNTARA JI. A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlca. Br. J. Audiol. 34:205-224, 2000.
28. National Institute of Standards and Technology (1990) DARPA TIMIT Acoustic-Phonetic Continuous Speech Corpus CD-ROM. Gaithersburg, MD.
29. ROBERT ME. AIPSS-ID: Phoneme Identification Software. House Ear Institute Los Angeles, CA, 1997.
30. ROSEN S, FALKNER A, WILKINSON L. Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106:3629-3636, 1999, DOI: 10.1121/1.428215.
31. SELIGMAN PM, MCDERMOTT HJ. Architecture of the Spectra-22 speech processor. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 104(Suppl 166):139-141, 1995.
32. SHANNON RV, ZENG F-G, KAMATH V, WYGONSKI J, EKELID M, Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270:303-304, 1995.
33. SHANNON RV, ZENG F-G, WYGONSKI J. Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104(4):2467-2476, 1998.
34. STUDEBAKER GA, SHERBECOE RL. Frequency-importance functions for speech recognition. In: Studebaker GA, Hochberg I, (eds) Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing and Performance. Allyn and Bacon Boston, 1993. p. 185-204.
35. TURNER CW, CUMMINGS KJ. Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. Am. J. Audiol. 8:47-56, 1999.
36. TURNER GW, CHI S-L, FLOCK S. Limiting spectral resolution in speech for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J. Speech Hear. Res. 42:773-784, 1999.
37. VAN TASELL DJ, GREENFIELD DG, LOGEMANN JJ, NELSON DA. Temporal cues for consonant recognition: Training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 92:1247-1257, 1992.
38. VAN TASELL DJ, SOLI SD, KIRBY WIDIN GP. Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82:1152-1161, 1987.
39. VICKERS DA, MOORE BCJ, BAER T Effects of lowpass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 110:1164-1175, 2001.
40. WARREN RM, REINER KR, BASHFORD JR JA, BRUBAKER BS. Spectral redundancy: Intelligibility of sentences heard through narrow spectral slits. Percept. Psychophys. 57:175-182, 1995.