Acoustic model investigation of a multiple carrier frequency algorithm for encoding fine frequency structure: Implications for cochlear implants

Hearing Research

Volumn 218, Issue 1-2, 2006, Pages 30-42

  Throckmorton, Chandra S ^a   Selin Kucukoglu, M ^a   Remus, Jeremiah J ^a   Collins, Leslie M ^a  

^a Duke University   (United States)

Author keywords

Acoustic model; Cochlear implant; Frequency discrimination; Frequency modulation

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION;

ACOUSTICS; ALGORITHMS; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PITCH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 33746309473     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2006.03.020     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Baskent D., and Shannon R.V. Speech recognition under conditions of frequency-place compression and expansion. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113 4 (2003) 2064-2076
2. Blamey P.J., Dowell R.C., and Clark G.M. Acoustic parameters measured by a formant-estimating speech processor for a multiple-channel cochlear implant. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 82 1 (1987) 38-47
3. Clark G.M. The University of Melbourne-Nucleus multi-electrode cochlear implant. Advances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 38 (1987) 1-189
4. Collins L.M., Zwolan T.A., and Wakefield G.H. Comparison of electrode discriminability, pitch ranking, and pitch scaling data in postlingually deafened adult cochlear impant subjects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101 1 (1997) 440-455
5. Dorman M.F., Loizou P.C., Fitzke J., and Tu Z. The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 104 (1998) 3583-3585
6. Dorman M.F., Loizou P.C., Kemp L.L., and Kirk K.I. Word recognition by children listening to speech processed into a small number of channels: Data from normal-hearing children and children with cochlear implants. Ear & Hearing 21 6 (2000) 590-596
7. Dorman M.F., Loizou P.C., and Rainey D. 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 (1997) 2403-2411
8. Dorman M.F., Loizou P.C., Spahr A.J., and Maloff E. A comparison of the speech understanding provided by acoustic models of fixed-channel and channel-picking signal processors for cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 45 (2002) 783-788
9. Dorman M.F., Loizou P.C., Spahr A.J., and Maloff E. Factors that allow a high level of speech understanding by patients fit with cochlear implants. American Journal of Audiology 11 (2002) 119-123
10. Fearn, R., 2001. Music and pitch perception of cochlear implant recipients. Dissertation. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
11. Fearn R., and Wolfe J. Relative importance of rate and place: Experiments using pitch scaling techniques with cochlear implant recipients. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology - Supplement 109 12 (2000) 51-53
12. Flanagan J.L. Parametric coding of speech spectra. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 68 (1980) 412-419
13. Flanagan J.L., and Golden R.M. Phase vocoder. Bell System Technical Journal 45 (1966) 1493-1509
14. Friesen L.M., Shannon R.V., Baskent D., and Wang X. 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 2 (2001) 1150-1163
15. Fu Q.-J., and Shannon R.V. Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105 (1999) 1889-1900
16. Fu Q.-J., Shannon R.V., and Wang X. Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: Acoustic and electric hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 104 (1998) 3586-3596
17. Geier L., Fisher L., Barker M., and Opie J. The effect of long-term deafness on speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult Clarion cochlear implant users. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology - Supplement 177 (1999) 80-83
18. Hartmann R., Topp G., and Klinke R. Discharge patterns of cat primary auditory fibers with electrical stimulation of the cochlea. Hearing Research 13 (1984) 47-62
19. Henry B.A., McKay C.M., McDermott H.J., and Clark G.M. The relationship between speech perception and electrode discrimination in cochlear implantees. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108 (2000) 1269-1280
20. Kessler D.K. The Clarion multi-strategy cochlear implant. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology - Supplement 177 (1999) 8-16
21. Kiang N.Y.-S., and Moxon E.C. Physiological considerations in artificial stimulation of the inner ear. Annuals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology 81 (1972) 714-730
22. Kucukoglu, M.S., Collins, L.M., 2006. Alternative methods for frequency selection in a frequency encoding algorithm for cochlear implant speech processors. 29th ARO Midwinter Meeting, Baltimore, MD.
23. Landsberger D.M., and McKay C.M. Perceptual differences between low and high rates of stimulation on single electrodes for cochlear implantees. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117 1 (2005) 319-327
24. Loizou P.C., Dorman M.F., Poroy O., and Spahr A.J. Speech recognition by normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners as a function of intensity resolution. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108 5 (2000) 2377-2387
25. McKay C.M., and McDermott H.J. The perception of temporal patterns for electrical stimulation presented at one or two intracochlear sites. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100 2 (1996) 1081-1092
26. McKay C.M., McDermott H.J., and Carlyon R.P. Place and temporal cues in pitch perception: Are they truly independent?. Acoustics Research Letters Online 1 1 (2000) 25-30
27. McKay C.M., McDermott H.J., Vandali A.E., and Clark G.M. A comparison of speech perception of cochlear implantees using the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor (SMSP) and the MSP (MULTIPEAK) processor. Acta Otolaryngology 112 (1992) 752-761
28. Miller G.A., and Nicely P.E. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27 (1955) 338-352
29. Nie K., Stickney G., and Zeng F.-G. Encoding frequency modulation to improve cochlear implant performance in noise. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 52 1 (2005) 64-73
30. Nilsson M., Soli S.D., and Sullivan J.A. 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 2 (1994) 1085-1099
31. Patrick J.F., and Clark G.M. The Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant system. Ear and Hearing - Supplement 12 4 (1991) 3S-9S
32. Rubinstein J.T., Parkinson W.S., Tyler R.S., and Gantz B.J. Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance effects of implantation criteria. American Journal of Otology 20 (1999) 445-452
33. Shannon R.V. Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. I. Basic psychophysics. Hearing Research 11 (1983) 157-189
34. Shannon R.V., Zeng F.-G., Kamath V., Wygonski J., and Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270 (1995) 303-304
35. Shipp D.B., and Nedzelski J.M. Prognostic indicators of speech recognition performance in adult cochlear implant users: a prospective analysis. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology - Supplement 166 (1995) 194-196
36. Thornton A.R., and Raffin M.J.M. Speech discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 21 (1978) 507-518
37. Throckmorton C.S., and Collins L.M. Investigation of the effects of temporal and spatial interactions on speech-recognition skills in cochlear-implant subjects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105 (1999) 861-873
38. Throckmorton C.S., and Collins L.M. The effect of channel interactions on speech recognition in cochlear implant subjects: Predictions from an acoustic model. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 112 1 (2002) 285-296
39. Tong Y.C., Blamey P.J., Dowell R.C., and Clark G.M. Psychophysical studies evaluating the feasibility of a speech processing strategy for a multiple-channel cochlear implant. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 74 1 (1983) 73-80
40. Townshend B., Cotter N., Van Compernolle D., and White R.L. Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 82 1 (1987) 106-115
41. Tyler, R.S., Preece, J.P., Tye-Murray, N., 1986. The Iowa Phoneme and Sentence Tests. Iowa City, The University of Iowa, Department of Otolaryngology.
42. van Dijk J.E., van Olphen A.F., Langereis M.C., Mens L.H.M., Brokx J.P.L., and Smoorenburg G.F. Predictors of cochlear implant performance. Audiology 38 (1999) 109-116
43. Wilson B.S., Lawson D.T., Finley C.C., and Wolford R.D. Coding strategies for multichannel cochlear prostheses. The American Journal of Otology - Supplement 12 (1991) 56-61
44. Zeng F.-G. Temporal pitch in electric hearing. Hearing Research 174 (2002) 101-106
45. Zeng F.-G., Nie K., Stickney G., Kong Y.Y., Vongphoe M.A.B., Weit C.G., and Cao K. Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102 7 (2005) 2293-2298
46. Zwolan T.A., Collins L.M., and Wakefield G.H. Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102 6 (1997) 3673-3685