Phoneme recognition and confusions with multichannel cochlear implants: Vowels

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 45, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 1039-1054

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Nonsense syllable test; Postlingual profound hearing impairment; Speech recognition; Vowel confusions; Vowel recognition

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; ADULT; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONFUSION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; ERROR; FEMALE; FINLAND; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MALE; PHONEME; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RECOGNITION; TIME; VOWEL;

EID: 0036791350     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/084)     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Aaltonen, O. (1985). The effect of relative amplitude levels of F2 and F3 on the categorization of synthetic vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 13, 1-9.
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. British Society of Audiology. (1988). British Society of Audiology recommendation: Descriptors for pure tone audiograms, technical note. British Journal of Audiology, 22, 123.
4. Cochlear Ltd. (1999). Nucleus® technical reference manual Z43470: Issue I. Australia: Author.
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. (1998). 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 & Hearing, 19, 162-166.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Fu, Q.-J., & Shannon, R. V. (1999b). Effects of electrode configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. Ear & Hearing, 20, 332-344.
14. 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.
15. Harnsberger, J. D., Svirsky, M. A., Kaiser, A. R., Pisoni, D. B., Wright, R., & Meyer, T. A. (2001). Perceptual "vowel spaces" of cochlear implant users: Implications for the study of auditory adaptation to spectral shift. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 2135-2145.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Jauhiainen, T. (1974). An experimental study of the auditory perception of isolated bi-syllable Finnish words. Academic dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
19. Karlsson, F. (1983). Suomen kielen äänne- ja muotorakenne. Helsinki: Werner Söderström.
20. 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.
21. Kirk, K. I., Tye-Murray, N., & Hurtig, R. R. (1992). The use of static and dynamic vowel cues by multichannel cochlear implant users. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 3487-3498.
22. Kiukaanniemi, H. (1980). Speech discrimination of patients with high frequency hearing loss. Acta Otolaryngologica, 89, 419-423.
23. Kiukaanniemi, H., & Määttä, T. (1980). Speech discrimination and hearing loss sloping to high frequencies. Scandinavian Audiology, 9, 235-242.
24. Kraus, N., McGee, T. J., & Burton Koch, D. (1998). Speech sound perception and learning: Biologic bases. Scandinavian Audiology, 27(Suppl. 49), 7-17.
25. Lehtonen, J. (1970). Aspects of quantity in standard Finnish. Academic dissertation. Studia philological Jyväskyläensia VI. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
26. Lindblom, B. (1990). On the notion of "possible speech sound." Journal of Phonetics, 18, 135-152.
27. 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.
28. McDermott, H. J., McKay, C. M., & Vandali, A. E. (1992). A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 3367-3371.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Peterson, G. E., & Barney, H. L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 175-184.
32. Pols, L. C. W., van der Kamp, L. J. Th., & Plomp, R. (1969). Perceptual and physical space of vowel sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 46 (Part 2), 458-467.
33. 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.
34. Seligman, P., & McDermott, H. (1995). Architecture of the Spectra 22 speech processor. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 104 (Part 2, Suppl. 166), 139-141.
35. 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.
36. Shannon, R. V. (1993). Psychophysics. In R. S. Tyler (Ed.), Cochlear implants: Audiological foundations (pp. 357-388). London: Whurr.
37. 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.
38. Skinner, M. W, Fourakis, M. S., Holden, T. A., Holden, L. K., & Demorest, M. E. (1996). Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the Multipeak (MPEAK) and Spectral Peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies I: Vowels. Ear & Hearing, 17, 182-197.
39. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., & Holden, T. A. (1995). Effect of frequency boundary assignment on speech recognition with the SPEAK speech-coding strategy. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 10 (Suppl. 166), 307-311.
40. Sulkala, H., & Karjalainen, M. (1992). Finnish descriptive grammars. London: Routledge.
41. Tyler, R. S., Preece, J. P., Lansing, C. R., & Gantz, B. J. (1992). Natural vowel perception by patients with the Ineraid cochlear implant. Audiology, 31, 228-239.
42. 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.
43. Välimaa, T., & Sorri, M. (2000). Speech perception after multichannel cochlear implantation in Finnish-speaking postlingually deafened adults. Scandinavian Audiology, 29, 276-283.
44. 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.
45. Van Wieringen, A., & Wouters, J. (1999). Natural vowel and consonant recognition by Laura cochlear implantees. Ear & Hearing, 20, 89-103.
46. Whitford, L.A., Seligman, P. M., Everingham, C. E., Antognelli, T., Skok, M. C., Hollow, R. D., et al. (1995). Evaluation of the Nucleaus Spectra 22 Processor and new speech processing strategy in postlinguistically deafened adults. Acta Otolaryngologica, 115, 629-637.
47. Wiik, K. (1965). Finnish and English vowels: A comparison with special reference to the learning problems met by native speakers of Finnish learning English. Academic Dissertation. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, Series B, 94. Turku: University of Turku.
48. 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.
49. Zwicker, E. (1961). Subdivision of the audible frequency range into critical bands (Frequenzgruppen). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33, 248.