The relative importance of amplitude, temporal, and spectral cues for cochlear implant processor design

American Journal of Audiology

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 124-127

  Shannon, Robert V ^a  

^a HOUSE EAR INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlear implants; Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; COCHLEA; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONFERENCE PAPER; HEARING; HUMAN; SPECTROSCOPY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TONOTOPY; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; TIME;

COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; CUES; DEAFNESS; HUMANS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0038660474     PISSN: 10590889     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1059-0889(2002/013)     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. Arai, T., & Greenberg, S. (1998). Speech intelligibility in the presence of cross-channel spectral asynchrony, Proc. IEEE/ICASSP, Seattle, WA: (pp. 933-936).
2. Baskent, D., & Shannon, R. V. (in press). Speech recognition under conditions of frequency-place compression and expansion. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
3. Burns, E. M., & Viemeister, N. F. (1976). Nonspectral pitch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 60, 863-869.
4. Burns, E. M., & Viemeister, N. F. (1981). Played-again SAM: Further observations on the pitch of amplitude-modulated noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 70, 1655-1660.
5. 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.
6. 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 sine-wave and noise-band outputs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2403-2411.
7. Drullman, R. (1995). Temporal envelope and fine structure cues for speech intelligibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 585-592.
8. Drullman, R., Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1994a). Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1053-1064.
9. Drullman, R., Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1994b). Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 2670-2680.
10. Eisenberg, L., Shannon, R. V., Martinez, A. S., Wygonski, J., & Boothroyd, A. (2000). Speech recognition with reduced spectral cues as a function of age. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107(5), 2704-2710.
11. Fishman, K., 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 and Hearing Research, 40, 1201-1215.
12. Friesen, L., Shannon, R. V., Baskent, D., & Wang, X. (2001). Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 1150-1163.
13. Fu, Q.-J., & Galvin, J. (2001). Recognition of spectrally asynchronous speech by normal-hearing listeners and Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109(3), 1166-1172.
14. Fu, Q.-J., & Shannon, R. V. (1998). Effects of amplitude nonlinearities on speech recognition by cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 2570-2577.
15. Fu, Q.-J., & Shannon, R. V. (1999) Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 1889-1900.
16. Fu, Q.-J., & Shannon, R. V. (2000). Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition in cochlear implants, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107(1), 589-597.
17. Fu, Q.-J., Shannon, R. V., & Galvin, J. (2002). Perceptual learning following changes in the frequency-to-electrode assignment with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112, 1664-1674.
18. Fu, Q.-J., Shannon, R. V., & Wang, X. (1998). Effects of noise and number of channels on vowel and consonant recognition: Acoustic and electric hearing. Journal of The Acoustical Society of America, 104, 3586-3596.
19. Geier, L., & Norton, S. (1992). The effects of limiting the number of Nucleus 22 cochlear implant electrodes programmed on speech perception. Ear and Hearing, 13, 340-348.
20. Greenwood, D. D. (1990). A cochlear frequency-position function for several species: 29 years later. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 2592-2605.
21. Hill, F. J., McRae, L. P., & McClellan, R. P. (1968). Speech recognition as a function of channel capacity in a discrete set of channels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 44, 13-18.
22. Lawson, D., Wilson, B., & Finley, C. (1993). New processing strategies for multichannel cochlear prostheses. In J. A. Allum, D. J. A Hum-Mecklenburg, F. P. Harris, and R. Probst (Eds.), Natural and Artificial Control of Hearing and Balance, Progress in Brain Research. 97 (pp. 313-321). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
23. Licklider, J. C. R., & Pollack, I. (1948). Effects of differentiation, integration, and infinite peak clipping on the intelligibility of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 20, 42-51.
24. Loizou, P. C., Dorman, M., Poroy, O., & Spahr, T. (2000). Speech recognition by normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners as a function of intensity resolution. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108, 2377-2387.
25. Plomp, R. (1983). The role of modulation in hearing. In R. Klinke & R. Hartmann (Eds.), Hearing -Physiological Bases and Psychophysics (pp. 270-276). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
26. Rosen, S. (1992). Temporal information in speech and its relevance for cochlear implants. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B Biol Sci, 336, 367-373.
27. 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.
28. Saberi, K., & Perrott, D. R. (1999). Cognitive restoration of reversed speech. Nature, 398, 760.
29. th International Symposium on Hearing (pp. 500-508). Maastricht, NL: Shaker Publishing BV.
30. Shannon, R. V., Galvin, J, G., & Baskent, D. (2002). Holes in hearing. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 3, 185-199.
31. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F.-G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303-304.
32. 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.
33. Smith, Z. M., Delgutte, B., & Oxenham, A. J. (2002). Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature, 416, 87-90.
34. Vandali, A. E., Whitford, L. A., Plant, K. L., & Clark, G. M. (2000). Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: Using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear and Hearing, 21, 608-624.
35. Viemeister, N. F. (1979). Temporal modulation transfer functions based upon modulation thresholds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66, 1364-1380.
36. Zeng, F.-G., & Galvin, J. (1999) Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. Ear and Hearing, 20, 60-74.