Phoneme recognition and confusions with multichannel cochlear implants: Consonants

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 45, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 1055-1069

  Välimaa, Taina T ^a   Määttä, Taisto K ^a   Löppönen, Heikki J ^a   Sorri, Martti J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Consonant confusions; Consonant recognition; Speech recognition; Syllable test

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONFUSION; CONSONANT; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; ERROR; FEMALE; FINLAND; HEARING; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; LANGUAGE; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PHONEME; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RECOGNITION; TIME;

EID: 0036787523     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/085)     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Blamey, P., Arndt, P., Bergeron, F., Bredberg, G., Brimacombe, J., Facer, G., et al. (1996). Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiology & Neuro-Otology, 1, 293-306.
2. Blamey, P. J., Dowell, R. C., Brown, A. M., Clark, G. M., & Seligman, P. M. (1987). Vowel and consonant recognition of cochlear implant patients using formant-estimating speech processors. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82, 48-57.
3. Boothroyd, A., Mulhearn, B., Gong, J., & Ostroff, J. (1996). Effects of spectral smearing on phoneme and word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 1807-1818.
4. British Society of Audiology. (1988). British Society of Audiology recommendation:. Descriptors for pure tone audiograms, technical note. British Journal of Audiology, 22, 123.
5. Cohen, N. L., Waltzman, S. B., & Fisher, S. G. (1993). A prospective randomized study of cochlear implants. New England Journal of Medicine, 328, 233-237.
6. Cohen, N. L., Waltzman, S. B., Roland, J. T., Bromberg, B., Cambron, N., Gibbs, L., et al. (1997). Results of speech processor upgrade in a population of veterans affairs cochlear implant recipients. American Journal of Otology, 18, 462-465.
7. Dorman, M. F., Loizou, P. C., & Rainey, D. (1997a). Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2993-2996.
8. Dorman, M. F., Loizou, P. C., & Rainey, D. (1997b). Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sinewave and noise-band outputs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2403-2411.
9. Dowell, R. C., Mecklenburg, D. J., & Clark G. M. (1986). Speech recognition for 40 patients receiving multichannel cochlear implants. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, 112, 1054-1059.
10. Doyle, K. J., Mills, D., Larky, J., Kessler, D., Luxford, W. M., & Schindler, R. A. (1995). Consonant perception by users of Nucleus and Clarion multichannel cochlear implants. American Journal of Otology, 16, 676-681.
11. Dubno, J. R., & Dirks, D. D. (1982). Evaluation of hearing-impaired listeners using a nonsense-syllable test: I. Test reliability. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 25, 135-141.
12. Fant, G. (1968). Analysis and synthesis of speech processes. In B. Malmberg (Ed.), Manual of phonetics (pp. 173-277). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.
13. Fishman, K. E., 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, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 1201-1215.
14. Fu, Q.-J., & Shannon, R. V. (1999a). Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 1889-1900.
15. Fu, Q.-J., & Shannon, R. V. (1999b). Phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users as a function of signal-to-noise ratio and nonlinear amplitude mapping. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, L18-23.
16. Gardner, M. J., & Altman, D. G. (1989). Calculating confidence intervals for proportions and their differences. In M. J. Gardner & D. G. Altman (Eds.), Statistics with confidence-Confidence intervals and statistical guidelines (pp. 28-33). London: British Medical Journal.
17. Gstöttner, W. K., Hamzavi, J., & Baumgartner, W. D. (1998). Speech discrimination scores of postlingually deaf adults implanted with the Combi 40 cochlear implant. Acta Otolaryngologica (Stockh), 118, 640-645.
18. Halle, M., Hughes, G. W., & Radley, J.-P. A. (1957). Acoustic properties of stop consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 29, 107-116.
19. Helms, J., Müller, J., Schön, F., Moser, L., Arnold, W., Janssen, T., et al. (1997). Evaluation of performance with the Combi 40 cochlear implant in adults: A multicentric clinical study. Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 59, 23-35.
20. Iivonen, A., & Laukkanen, A.-M. (1993). Explanations for the qualitative variation of Finnish vowels. In A. Iivonen & M. Lehtihalmes (Eds.), Studies in logopedics and phonetics 4 (pp. 29-54). Publications of the Department of Phonetics, University of Helsinki, Series B: Phonetics, Logopedics and Speech Communication 5.
21. Karlsson, F. (1983). Suomen kielen äänne- ja muotorakenne. Helsinki: Werner Söderström.
22. Kiefer, J., Hohl, S., Sturzebecher, E., Pfennigdorff, T., & Gstöttner, W. (2001). Comparison of speech recognition with different speech coding strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and ACE) and their relationship to telemetric measures of compound action potentials in the Nucleus CI 24M cochlear implant system. Audiology, 40, 32-42.
23. Kiefer, J., von Ilberg, C., Rupprecht, V., Hubner-Egner, J., & Knecht, R. (2000). Optimized speech understanding with the continuous interleaved sampling speech coding strategy in patients with cochlear implants: Effect of variations in stimulation rate and number of channels. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 109, 1009-1020.
24. Kiukaanniemi, H., & Määttä, T. (1980). Speech discrimination and hearing loss sloping to high frequencies. Scandinavian Audiology, 9, 235-242.
25. Kompis, M., Vischer, M. W., & Häusler, R. (1999). Performance of compressed analogue (CA) and continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) coding strategies for cochlear implants in quiet and noise. Acta Otolaryngologica, 119, 659-664.
26. Kraus, N., McGee, T. J., & Burton Koch, D. (1998). Speech sound perception and learning: Biologic bases. Scandinavian Audiology, 27(Suppl. 49), 7-17.
27. Lindblom, B. (1990). On the notion of "possible speech sound." Journal of Phonetics, 182, 135-152.
28. Loizou, P. C., Dorman, M., & Fitzke, J. (2000). The effect of reduced dynamic range on speech understanding: Implications for patients with cochlear implants. Ear & Hearing, 21, 25-31.
29. Loizou, P. C., Poroy, O., & Dorman, M. (2000). The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108, 790-802.
30. Määttä, T. K., Sorri, M. J., Huttunen, K. H., Välimaa, T. T., & Muhli, A. A. (2001). On the construction of a Finnish audiometric sentence test. Scandinavian Audiology, 29(Suppl. 52), 171-173.
31. McKay, C. M., & McDermott, H. J. (1993). Perceptual performance of subjects with cochlear implants using the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor (SMSP) and the Mini Speech Processor (MSP). Ear & Hearing, 14, 350-367.
32. Miller, G. A., & Nicely, P. E. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 338-352.
33. Parkinson, A. J., Parkinson, W. S., Tyler, R. S., Lowder, M. W., & Gantz, B. J. (1998). Speech perception performance in experienced cochlear-implant patients receiving the SPEAK processing strategy in the Nucleus Spectra-22 cochlear implant. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1073-1087.
34. Parkinson, A. J., Tyler, R. S., Woodworth, G. G., Lowder, M. W., & Gantz, B. J. (1996). A within-subject comparison of adult patients using the Nucleus F0F1F2 and F0F1F2B3B4B5 speech processing strategies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 261-277.
35. Pelizzone, M., Cosendai, G., & Tinembart, J. (1999). Within-patient longitudinal speech reception measures with continuous interleaved sampling processors for Ineraid implanted subjects. Ear & Hearing, 20, 228-237.
36. Rosen, S., Faulkner, A., & Wilkinson, L. (1999). Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: Implications for cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 3629-3636.
37. Rubinstein, J. T., Parkinson, W. S., Tyler, R. S., & Gantz, B. J. (1999). Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: Effects of implantation. American Journal of Otology, 20, 445-452.
38. Seligman, P., & McDermott, H. (1995). Architecture of the Spectra 22 speech processor. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 104(Suppl. 166), 139-141.
39. Shallop, J. K., Arndt, P. L., & Turnacliff, K. A. (1992). Expanded indications for cochlear implantation: Perceptual results in seven adults with residual hearing. Journal of Speech and Language Pathology, 16, 141-148.
40. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F.-G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303-304.
41. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F.-G., & Wygonski, J. (1998). Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 2467-2476.
42. Skinner, M. W., Fourakis, M. S., Holden, T. A., Holden, L. K., & Demorest, M. E. (1999). Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the Multipeak (MPEAK) and Spectral Peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies II. Consonants. Ear & Hearing, 20, 443-460.
43. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden T. A., Dowell, R. C., Seligman P. M., Brimacombe, J. A., et al. (1991). Performance of postlinguistically deaf adults with the Wearable Speech Processor (WSP III) and Mini Speech Processor (MSP) of the Nucleus multi-electrode cochlear implant. Ear & Hearing, 12, 3-22.
44. Sulkala, H., & Karjalainen, M. (1992). Finnish descriptive grammars. London: Routledge.
45. Suomi, K. (1980). Voicing in English and Finnish stops. A typological comparison with an interlanguage study of the two languages in contact. Academic dissertation. Publications of the Department of Finnish and General Linguistics of the University of Turku, 10. Turku: University of Turku.
46. Tyler, R. S., Preece, J. P., Lansing, C. R., Otto, S. R., & Gantz, B. J. (1986). Previous experience as a confounding factor in comparing cochlear-implant processing schemes. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 29, 282-287.
47. Välimaa, T. T., Määttä, T. K., Löppönen, H. J., & Sorri, M. J. (2002). Phoneme recognition and confusions with multichannel cochlear implants: Vowels. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1039-1054.
48. van Dijk, J. E., Olphen, A. F., Langereis, M. C., Mens, L. H. M., Brokx, J. P. L., & Smoorenburg, G. F. (1999). Predictors of cochlear implant performance. Audiology, 38, 109-116.
49. Van Tasell, D. J., Soli, S. D., Kirby, V. M., & Widin, G. P. (1987). Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82, 1152-1161.
50. Van Wieringen, A., & Wouters, J. (1999). Natural vowel and consonant recognition by Laura cochlear implantees. Ear & Hearing, 20, 89-103.
51. Whitford, L. A., Seligman, P. M., Everigham, C. E., Antognelli, T., Skok, M. C., Hollow, R. D., et al. (1995). Evaluation of the Nucleus Spectra 22 processor and new speech processing strategy (SPEAK) in postlinguistically deafened adults. Acta Otolaryngologica, 115, 629-637.
52. Wiik, K. (1984). Konsonanttien vaikutus vokaalien laatuun suomessa (On the influence of consonants on the quality of vowels in Finnish). In U. Ikonen & T. Tikka (Eds.), Papers from the twelfth meeting on Finnish phoneticians (pp. 114-128). Studies in Languages, 1. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.