Effects of presentation level on phoneme and sentence recognition in quiet by cochlear implant listeners

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 392-405

  Donaldson, Gail S ^a   Allen, Shanna L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONSONANT; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROSTIMULATION; FEMALE; HEARING DISORDER; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; IMPLANTATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LOUDNESS; MALE; PERFORMANCE; PHONEME; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; SOUND; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION;

ADULT; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PHONETICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 0141993806     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.AUD.0000090340.09847.39     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Blamey, P. J., Arndt, P., Bergeron, F., Bredberg, G., Brimacombe, J., Facer, G., Larky, J., Lindstrom, B., Nedzelski, J., Peterson, A., Shipp, A., Staller, S., & Whitford, L. (1996). Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiology and Neuro-Otology, 1, 293-306.
2. Carhart, R., & Jerger, J. F. (1959). Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 24, 330-345.
3. French, N. R., & Steinberg, J. C. (1947). Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 19, 90-199.
4. Fu, Q-J., & Shannon, R. V. (1998). Effects of amplitude nonlinearity on speech recognition by cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 2571-2577.
5. Fu, Q-J., & Shannon, R. V. (1999). Effect of acoustic dynamic range on phoneme recognition in quiet and noise by cochlear implant users. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, L65-L70.
6. Fu, Q-J., Shannon, R. V., & Wang, X. (1998). Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: Acoustic and electrical hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 3586-3596.
7. Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3099-3111.
8. Hochberg, I., Boothroyd, A., Weiss, M., & Hellman, S. (1992). Effects of noise and noise suppression on speech perception by cochlear implant users. Ear and Hearing, 13, 263-271.
9. Holden, L. K., Skinner, M. W., Holden, T. A., & Demorest, M. E. (2002). Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. Ear and Hearing, 23, 463-476.
10. James, C. J., Blamey, P. J., Martin, L., Swanson, B., Just, Y., & Macfarlane, D. (2002). Adaptive dynamic range optimization for cochlear implants: A preliminary study. Ear and Hearing, 23, 29S-58S.
11. 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.
12. Muller-Deile, J., Schmidt, B. J., & Rudert, H. (1995). Effects of noise on speech discrimination in cochlear implant patients. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 104(Suppl. 166), 303-306.
13. Nilson, J., Soli, S. D., & Sullivan, J. A. (1994). Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1085-1099.
14. Seligman, P., & Whitford, L. (1995). Adjustment of appropriate signal levels in the Spectra 22 and mini speech processors. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 104(Suppl. 166), 172-175.
15. Skinner, M. W., Clark, G. M., Whitford, L. A., Seligman, P. M., Staller, S. J., Shipp, D. B., Shallop, J. K., Everingham, C., Menapace, C. M., Arndt, P. L., Antogenelli, T., Brimacombe, J. A., Pijl, S., Daniels, P., George, C. R., McDermott, H. J., & Beiter, A. L. (1994). Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 channel cochlear implant system. American Journal of Otology, 15, 15-27.
16. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., & Holden, T. A. (1997). Parameter selection to optimize speech recognition with the Nucleus implant. Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, 117, 188-195.
17. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A., & Demorest, M. E. (1995). Comparison of procedures for obtaining thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels with the Nucleus cochlear implant system. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 677-689.
18. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A., & Demorest, M. E. (1999). Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 42, 814-828.
19. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A., Demorest, M. E., & Fourakis, M. S. (1997). Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 3766-3782.
20. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Whitford, L. A., Plant, K. L., Psarros, C., & Holden, T. A. (2002). Speech recognition with the Nucleus SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults. Ear and Hearing, 23, 207-223.
21. Sun, J. C., Skinner, M. W., Liu, S. Y., Wang, F. N. M., Huang, T. S., & Lin, T. (1998). Optimization of speech processor fitting strategies for chinese-speaking cochlear implantees. Laryngoscope, 108, 560-568.
22. Van Tasell, D. J., Greenfield, D. G., Logemann, J. J., & Nelson, D. A. (1992). Temporal cues for consonant recognition: Training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92, 1247-1257.
23. 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.
24. Zeng, F-G., & Galvin, J. J. (1999). Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. Ear and Hearing, 20, 60-74.
25. Zeng, F-G., Grant, G., Niparko, J., Galvin, J., Shannon, R., Opie, J., & Segel, S. (2002). Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 377-386.
26. Wilson, B. (2000). Sixth Quarterly Progress Report, Speech Processors for Auditory Prostheses. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
27. Allen, S. A., & Donaldson, G. S. (1999). Input dynamic range and speech perception in cochlear implant listeners. (Unpublished data).