Evaluation of the high-resolution speech coding strategy for the Clarion CII cochlear implant system

Journal of Otolaryngology

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 81-86

  Ostroff, Jodi M ^a,b   David, Eytan A ^a   Shipp, David B ^a   Chen, Joseph M ^a   Nedzelski, Julian M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cochlear implants; High resolution; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ADULT; ARTICLE; CASE REPORT; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; DEVICE; ELECTRODE; ELECTROSTIMULATION; EVALUATION; HUMAN; IMPLANT; LINGUISTICS; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLING; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION;

EID: 0042672652     PISSN: 03816605     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2310/7070.2003.37247     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Whitford LA, Seligman PM, Everingham CE, et al. Evaluation of the nucleus spectra 22 processor and new speech processing strategy (SPEAK) in postlinguistically deafened adults. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1995; 115:629-637.
2. Skinner MW, Arndt PL, Staller S. Nucleus 24 advanced encoder conversion study: performance versus preference. Ear Hear Suppl 2002; 23(Suppl):2S-17S.
3. Shipp DB, Nedzelski JM, Chen JM, et al. Comparison of postlingually deafened adults using the SPEAK and CIS coding strategies. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2000; 57:425-429.
4. David EA, Ostroff J, Shipp D, et al. Speech processing strategies and revised cochlear implant candidacy: an analysis of post-implant performance. J Otol Neurotol 2003; 24: 228-233
5. Wilson B, Wolford B, Lawson D. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. National Institutes of Health project N01-DC-8-2105. Sixth Quarterly Progress Report. Bethesda, MD: Neural Prosthesis Program, NIH, 2000.
6. Loizou PC, Poroy O, Dorman M. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 108:790-802.
7. Segel P, Kruger T, Overstreet E, et al. Clarion® CII Bionic Ear™ system: optimized fittings with high-resolution sound delivery. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Audiology, Philadelphia, PA, April 2002.
8. Xu J, Shepherd RK, Millard RE, et al. Chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve at high stimulus rates: a physiological and histopathological study. Hear Res 1997; 105:1-29.
9. Zwolan T, Kileny P, Smith S, et al. Comparison of a simultaneous and non-simultaneous speech processing strategy in newly implanted adults. Otol Neurotol 2001.
10. Cohen NL, Waltzman SB, Roland JT, et al. Results of speech processor upgrade in a population of Veterans' Affairs cochlear implant recipients. Am J Otol 1997; 18: 462-465.
11. Koch D, Segel P, Overstreet E, et al. Comparison of high-resolution vs. conventional sound delivery in the CLARION® CII Bionic Ear™. Poster presented at the meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, St. Petersburg, FL, February 2001.