Effects of stimulation rate with the nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 463-476

  Holden, Laura K ^a   Skinner, Margaret W ^a   Holden, Timothy A ^a   Demorest, Marilyn E ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CODING; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROSTIMULATION; FEMALE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; LEARNING; LOUDNESS; MALE; NOISE; PHONEME; SPEECH; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION;

EID: 0036775950     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200210000-00008     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Boothroyd, A., Hnath-Chisolm, T., Hanin, T., & Kishon-Rabin, L. (1988). Voice fundamental frequency as an auditory supplement to the speechreading of sentences. Ear and Hearing, 9, 306-312.
2. Carhart, R., & Jerger, J. (1959). Preferred method for clinical determination of pure tone thresholds. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 24, 330-345.
3. Chatterjee, M. (1999). Temporal mechanisms underlying recovery from forward masking in multielectrode implant listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 1853-1863.
4. Fu, Q., & Shannon, R. V. (2000). Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by Nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 589-597.
5. Hughes, M. L., Brown, C. J., Abbas, P. J., Wolaver, A. A., & Gervais, J. P. (2000). Comparison of EAP thresholds to MAP levels in the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant: Data from children. Ear and Hearing, 21, 164-174.
6. Kiefer, J., von Ilberg, C., Rupprecht, V., Huber-Egener, J., Baumgartner, W., Gstoettner, W., Forgasi, K., & Stephan, K. (2000). Optimized speech understanding with the CIS-speech coding strategy in cochlear implants: The effect of variations in stimulus rate and number of channels. In S. B. Waltzman & N. Cohen (Eds.), Cochlear Implants (pp. 339-340). New York: Thieme.
7. Pearsons, K. S., Bennett, R. L., & Fidell, S. (1976). Speech levels in various environments. Bolt Beranek and Newman Report No. 321, Canoga Park, CA.
8. Peterson, G., & Lehiste, I. (1962). Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 27, 62-70.
9. Seligman, P. M., & McDermott, H. J. (1995). Architecture of the Spectra 22 speech processor. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 104(Suppl. 166), 172-175.
10. Shannon, R. V. (1985). Threshold and loudness functions for pulsatile stimulation of cochlear implants. Hearing Research, 18, 135-143.
11. Shepherd, R. K., & Javel, E. (1999). Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: II. Effect of stimulus waveshape on single fibre response properties. Hearing Research, 130, 171-188.
12. Skinner, M. W. (1988). Hearing Aid Evaluation. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
13. Skinner, M. W., Arndt, P. L., & Staller, S. (2002). Nucleus 24 advanced encoder conversion study: Performance versus preference. Ear and Hearing, 23(Suppl.), 2S-17S.
14. Skinner, M. W., Clark, G. M., Whitford, L. A., Seligman, P. M., Staller, S. J., Shipp, D. B., Shallop, J. K., 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. American Journal of Otology, 15(Suppl. 2), 15-27.
15. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A., & Demorest, M. E. (1995). Comparison of procedures for obtaining thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels with the Nucleus Cochlear Implant System. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 677-689.
16. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A., & Demorest, M. E. (1999). Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 Cochlear Implant. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 814-828.
17. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A., & Demorest, M. E. (2000). Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant recipients' thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels. Journal of American Academy of Audiology, 11, 203-213.
18. 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.
19. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Whitford, L. A., Plant, K. L., Psarros, C., & Holden, T. A. (2002). Speech recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults. Ear and Hearing, 23, 207-221.
20. Vandali, A. E., Whitford, L. A., Plant, K. L., & Clark, G. M. (2000). Speech perception as function of electrical stimulation rate: Using the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System. Ear and Hearing, 21, 608-624.
21. Walker, G., Dillon, H., & Byrne, D. (1984). Sound field audiometry: Recommended stimuli and procedures. Ear and Hearing, 5, 13-21.
22. Whitford, L. A., Seligman, P. M., Everingham, C. S., Antognelli, T., Skok, M. C., Hollow, R. D., Plant, K. L., Gerin, E. S., Staller, S. J., McDermott, H. J., Gibson, W. R., & Clark, G. M. (1995). Evaluation of the Nucleus Spectra 22 processor and new speech processing strategy (SPEAK) in postlinguistically deafened adults. Acta Otolaryngologica (Stockholm), 115, 629-637.
23. Wilson, B. S., Lawson, D. T., Finley, C. C., & Wolford, R. D. (1995). New processing strategies in cochlear implantation. American Journal of Otology, 16, 669-675.
24. Zeng, F., Grant, G., Niparko, J., Galvin, J., Shannon, R., Opie, J., & Segel, P. (2002). Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 377-385.