Acoustic simulations of combined electric and acoustic hearing (EAS)

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 371-380

  Dorman, Michael F ^a   Spahr, Anthony J ^a   Loizou, Philipos C ^b   Dana, Cindy J ^a   Schmidt, Jennifer S ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b The University of Texas at Dallas   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COMPREHENSION; CONSONANT; ELECTRODE; ELECTROSTIMULATION; FEMALE; FREQUENCY MODULATION; HEARING; HEARING AID; HUMAN; MALE; NOISE; PERFORMANCE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SIMULATION; SPEECH ARTICULATION; VOWEL;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DICHOTIC LISTENING TESTS; HUMANS; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 28844464852     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200508000-00001     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Delattre, P., Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., & Gerstman, L. (1952). An experimental study of the acoustic determinants of vowel color. Word, 8, 195-210.
2. Dorman, M. F. (1999). Speech Perception by Adults, in Cochlear Implants, S. Waltzman & N. Cohen (eds.). Thieme Medical Publishers, pp. 317-329.
3. Dorman, M. F., Dankowski, K., McCandless, G., & Smith, L. (1989). Consonant recognition as a function of the number of channels of stimulation by patients who use the Symbion cochlear implant. Ear and Hearing, 10, 288-291.
4. Dorman, M. F., & Loizou, P. (1997). Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and for patients with cochlear implants. American Journal of Otology, 18, 113-114.
5. Dorman, M. F., Loizou, P., & Rainey, D. (1997). 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.
6. Fishman, K., Shannon, R., & Slattery, W. (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.
7. Fu, Q.-J., Shannon, R., & Wang, X. (1998). Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: Acoustic and electric hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 3586-3596.
8. Gantz, B. J., & Turner, C. W. (2003). Combining acoustic and electric hearing, Laryngoscope, 113, 1726-1730.
9. Greenwood, D. D. (1990). A critical frequency-position function for several species: 29 years later. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 2592-2605.
10. James, C., Blamey, P., Shallop, J., Incerti, P., & Nicholas, A. (2001). Contralateral masking in cochlear implant users with residual hearing in the non-implanted ear. Audiology and Neuro-Otology, 6, 87-89.
11. Kiefer, J., Pok, M., Adunka, O., Sturzebecher, E., Baumgartner, W., Schmidt, M., Tillein, J., Ye, Q., & Gstoettner, W. (2005). Combined electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS) of the auditory system: Results of a clinical study. Audiology and Neurotology, 10, 134-144.
12. Lamel, L., Kassel, R., & Seneff, S. (1986). Speech database development: design and analysis of the acoustic-phonetic corpus. Proceedings of DARPA Speech Recognition Workshop, (pp. 100-109).
13. Lehnhardt, E. (1993). Intracochlear placement of cochlear implant electrodes in soft surgery technique. HNO, 41, 356-359.
14. Lippmann, R. P. (1996). Accurate consonant perception without mid-frequency speech energy. IEEE Transactions for Speech and Audio Processing, 4, 66-99.
15. Nilsson, M., Soli, S., & Sullivan, J. (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.
16. Rabinowitz, W., Eddington, D., Delhorne, L. & Cuneo, P. (1992). Relations among different measures of speech reception in subjects using a cochlear implant. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92, 1869-1881.
17. Skarzynski, H., Lorens, A., & Piotrowska, A. (2003). A new method of partial deafness treatment. Medical Science Monitor, 9, 20-24.
18. Spahr, A., & Dorman, M. (2004). Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices. Archives of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, 130, 624-628.
19. Turner, C. W., Gantz, B. J., Vidai, C., Behrens, A., & Henry, B. A. (2004). Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: Benefits of residual acoustic hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 1729-1735.
20. Tyler, R., Preece, J., & Lowder, M. (1987). The Iowa audiovisual speech perception laser videodisc. Laser Videodisc and Laboratory Report, Dept. of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics, Iowa City.
21. Von Ilberg, C., Kiefer, J., Tillein, J., Pfenningdorff, T., Hartmann, R., Sturzebecher, E., et al. (1999). Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: New technology for severe hearing loss. ORL-Journal for Oto-Rhyno-Laryngology and its Related Specialties, 61, 334-340.
22. Warren, R. M., Bashford, J. A., & Lenz, P. W. (2004). Intelligibility of bandpass filtered speech: Steepness of slopes required to eliminate transition band contributions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 1292-1295.
23. Wilson, B. (1997). The future of cochlear implants. British Journal of Audiology, 31, 205-225.