Dynamic range enhancement for cochlear implants

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 590-595

  Hong, Robert S ^a   Rubinstein, Jay T ^a,b   Wehner, Dan ^a   Horn, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA HOSPITALS AND CLINICS   (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlear implantation; Dynamic range; Signal Processing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COCHLEAR NERVE; HEARING ACUITY; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SOUND TRANSMISSION; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 0038636922     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00129492-200307000-00010     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Moore B. The perception of loudness. In: Moore B. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing. London: Academic Press, 1997:49.
2. Shannon RV. Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man: I. Basic psychophysics. Hear Res 1983;11:157-89.
3. Fu Q-J, Shannon RV. Effects of dynamic range and amplitude mapping on phoneme recognition in Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2000;21:227-35.
4. Loizou P, Dorman M, Fitzke J. The effect of reduced dynamic range on speech understanding: implications for patients with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2000;21:25-31.
5. Zeng F-G, Galvin J. Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear 1999;20:60-74.
6. Neuman A, Bakke M, Mackersie C, et al. The effect of compression ratio and release time on the categorical rating of sound quality. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;103:2273-81.
7. Boike K, Souza P. Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000;43:456-68.
8. Liberman MC. Auditory-nerve response from cats raised in a low-noise chamber. J Acoust Soc Am 1978;63:442-55.
9. Kiang NYS, Moxon EC, Levine RA. Auditory-nerve activity in cats with normal and abnormal cochleas. In: Wolstenholme GEW, Knight J, eds. Sensorineural Hearing Loss. London: Churchill, 1970:241-68.
10. Rubinstein JT, Wilson BS, Finley CC, et al. Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hear Res 1999;127:108-18.
11. Rubinstein JT, Abbas PJ, Miller CA. The neurophysiological effects of simulated auditory prostheses stimulation. Eighth Quarterly Progress Report N01-DC-6-2111 1998, NIH Neural Prosthesis Program.
12. Litvak L, Delgutte B, Eddington D. Auditory nerve fiber responses to electric stimulation: modulated and unmodulated pulse trains. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;110:368-79.
13. Litvak L. Towards a better speech processor for cochlear implants: auditory nerve responses to high rate electric pulse trains. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2002 (PhD dissertation).
14. Runge-Samuelson C. Response of the auditory nerve to sinusoidal electrical stimulation: effects of high-rate pulse trains. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa, 1002 (PhD dissertation).
15. Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 1971;49:467-77.
16. Collins JJ, Chow CC, Imhoff TT. Stochastic resonance without tuning. Nature 1995;376:236-8.
17. Shannon RV. Threshold and loudness functions for pulsatile stimulation of cochlear implants. Hear Res 1985;18:135-43.
18. Shannon RV. Psychophysics of electrical stimulation. In: Tyler RS, ed. Cochlear Implants: Audiological Foundations. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, 1993;357-88.
19. Pfingst BE, DeHaan DR, Holloway LA. Stimulus features affecting psychophysical detection thresholds for electrical stimulation of the cochlea: I. Phase duration and stimulus duration. J Acoust Soc Am 1991;90:1857-66.
20. Pfingst BE, Morris DJ. Stimulus features affecting psychophysical detection thresholds for electrical stimulation of the cochlea: II. Frequency and interpulse interval. J Acoust Soc Am 1993;94:1287-94.
21. Shannon RV. Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 1992;91:2156-64.
22. Zhang C-Y, Zeng F-G. Loudness of dynamic stimuli in acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1997;102:2925-34.
23. Smith ZM, Delgutte B, Oxenham AJ. Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature 2002;416:87-90.