Speech recognition with the advanced combination encoder and transient emphasis spectral maxima strategies in nucleus 24 recipients

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 681-701

  Holden, Laura K ^a,d   Vandali, Andrew E ^b   Skinner, Margaret W ^a   Fourakis, Marios S ^c   Holden, Timothy A ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering   (Australia)

^c OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Low level sound; Speech processors; Speech recognition; Speech coding strategies

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPEECH; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 24944577787     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/047)     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Arndt, P. L., Staller, S. J., Arcaroli, J., Hines, A., & Ebinger, K. (1999). Within participant comparison of advanced coding strategies in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant. Englewood, CO: Cochlear Americas.
2. Boothroyd, A., Hnath-Chisolm, T., Hanin, L., & Kishon-Rabin, L. (1988). Voice fundamental frequency as an auditory supplement to the speech reading of sentences. Ear and Hearing, 9, 306-312.
3. Carhart, B., & Jerger, J. (1959). Preferred method for clinical determination of pure tone thresholds. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 24, 330-345.
4. Cochlear Americas. (1999). Nucleus technical reference manual (Z43470 Issue 1). Englewood, CO: Author.
5. Cochlear Americas. (2004). Audiologists' workshop handouts notebook. Englewood, CO: Author.
6. Cohen, L. T., Saunders, E., & Clark, G. M. (2001). Psychophysics of a prototype peri-modiolar cochlear implant electrode array. Hearing Research, 155, 63-81.
7. Cooperative Research Centre for Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aid Innovation. (2003). SPEAR3 product brief: 3rd generation speech processor for electrical and acoustic research. East Melbourne, Australia: Author.
8. Cosendai, G., & Pelizzone, M. (2001). Effects of acoustical dynamic range on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Audiology, 40, 272-281.
9. Donaldson, G. S., & Allen, S. L. (2003). Effects of presentation level on phoneme and sentence recognition in quiet by cochlear implant listeners. Ear and Hearing, 24, 392-405.
10. Firszt, J. B., Holden, L. K., Skinner, M. W., Tobey, E. A., Peterson, A., Gaggl, W., et al. (2004). Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems. Ear and Hearing, 25, 375-387.
11. Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. S., Clark, M. J., & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3099-3111.
12. 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.
13. James, C. J., Blarney, 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(Suppl.), 49S-58S.
14. James, C. J., Skinner, M. W., Martin, L. F. A., Holden, L. K., Galvin, K. L., Holden, T. A., & Whitford, L. (2003). An investigation of input level range for the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: Speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings. Ear and Hearing, 24, 157-174.
15. Luxford, W., & Ad Hoc Subcommittee. (2001). Minimum speech test battery for postlinguistically deafened adult cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 124, 125-126.
16. McDermott, H. J., Henshall, K. R., & McKay, C. M. (2002). Benefits of syllabic input compression for users of cochlear implants. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 13, 14-24.
17. McDermott, H. J., Vandali, A. D., van Hoesel, R. J. M., McKay, C. M., Harrison, J. M., & Cohen, L. T. (1993). A portable programmable digital sound processor for cochlear implant research. IEEE Engineering Journal of Biological Society, 1, 94-100.
18. McKay, C. M., Henshall, K. R., Farrell, R. J., & McDermott, H. J. (2003). A practical method of predicting the loudness of complex electrical stimuli. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 2054-2063.
19. Miller, G. A., & Nicely, P. E. (1955). Analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 338-352.
20. Parkinson, A. J., Arcaroli, J., Staller, S. J., Arndt, P. L., Cosgriff, A., & Ebinger, K. (2002). The Nucleus 24 Contour cochlear implant system: Adult clinical trial results. Ear and Hearing, 23(Suppl), 41S-48S.
21. Pascoe, D. P. (1975). Frequency responses of hearing aids and their effects on the speech perception of hearing-impaired participants. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, 84(Suppl. 23), 1-40.
22. Peterson, G. E., & Lehiste, I. (1962). Revised CNC lists for auditory test. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 27, 62-70.
23. Seligman, P. M., & McDermott, H. J. (1995). Architecture of the Spectra 22 speech processor. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, 104(Suppl. 166), 172-175.
24. Seligman, P. M., & 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), 139-141.
25. Shannon, R. V., Jensvold, A., Padilla, M., Robert, M. E., & Wang, X. (1999). Consonant recordings for speech testing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, L71-L74.
26. Skinner, M. W. (1988). Hearing aid evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27. Skinner, M. W., Arndt, P. L., & Staller, S. J. (2002). Nucleus 24 advanced encoder conversion study: Performance versus preference. Ear and Hearing, 23(Suppl.), 2S-17S.
28. Skinner, M. W., Binzer, S. M., Potts, L. G., Holden, L. K., & Aaron, R. J. (2002). Hearing rehabilitation for individuals with severe and profound hearing impairment: Hearing aids, cochlear implants and counseling. In M. Valente (Ed.), Strategies for selecting and verifying hearing aid fittings (2nd ed., pp. 311-344). New York: Thieme Medical.
29. Skinner, M. W., Clark, G. M., Whitford, L. A., Seligman, P. M., Staller, S. J., Ship, D. B., et al. (1994). Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 Channel cochlear implant system. American Journal of Otology, 15(Suppl. 2), 15-27.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A., Demorest, M. E., & Fourakis, H. 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.
33. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Whitford, L. A., Plant, K. L., Psarros, C., & Holden, T. A. (2002). Speech recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults. Ear and Hearing, 23, 207-223.
34. Stöbich, B., Zierhofer, C. M., & Hochmair, E. S. (1999). Influence of automatic gain control parameter settings on speech understanding of cochlear implant users employing the continuous interleaved sampling strategy. Ear and Hearing, 20, 104-116.
35. Vandali, A. E. (2001). Emphasis of short-duration acoustic cues for cochlear implant users. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 2049-2061.
36. Vandali, A. E., Richardson, L., Pedley, K. M., & Plant, K. (2002). Comparison of the TESM and SPEAK strategies in the SPEAR3 processor with users of the CI22 implant (Internal Rep.). East Melbourne, Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aid Innovation.
37. Vandali, A. E., Whitford, L. A., Plant, K. L., & Clark, B. M. (2000). Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear and Hearing, 21, 608-624.
38. van Hoesel, R., Lenarz, T., Battmer, R. D., Beckschebe, J., & Böhm, M. (2004). Amplitude-mapping effects on speech intelligibility with unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants. Manuscript submitted for publication.
39. Walker, G., Dillon, H., & Byrne, D. (1984). Sound-field audiometry: Recommended stimuli and procedures. Ear and Hearing, 5, 13-21.
40. Wang, M. D., & Bilger, R. C. (1973). Consonant confusions in noise: A study of perceptual features. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 1248-1256.
41. Wilson, B. S., Lawson, D. T., Finley, C. C., & Wolford, R. D. (1995). New processing strategies in cochlear implantation. American Journal of Otology, 16, 669-675.
42. Zeng, F.-G., Grant, G., Niparko, J., Galvin, J., Shannon, B., Opie, J., & Segel, P. (2002). Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 377-386.