Speech processing in vocoder-centric cochlear implants

Advances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Volumn 64, Issue , 2006, Pages 109-143

  Loizou, Philipos C ^a  

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUDITORY STIMULATION; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMMUNICATION AID; ELECTRODE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HEARING LOSS; HISTORY; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; REVIEW; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COMMUNICATION AIDS FOR DISABLED; ELECTRODES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HEARING LOSS; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 33748341497     PISSN: 00653071     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1159/000094648     Document Type: Review

References (117)

1. Loizou P: Mimicking the human ear: an overview of signal processing techniques for converting sound to electrical signals in cochlear implants. IEEE Signal Processing Mag 1998;15:101-130.
2. Dudley H: Remaking speech. J Acoust Soc Am 1939;11:1969-1977.
3. Schroeder M: Vocoders: analysis and synthesis of speech. Proc IEEE 1966;54:720-734.
4. Gold B, Rader C: The channel vocoder. IEEE Trans Audio Electroacoust 1967;15:148-161.
5. Green T, Faulkner A, Rosen S: Enhancing temporal cues to voice pitch in continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;116:2298-2310.
6. Vandali A, Sucher C, Tsang D, McKay C, Chew J, McDermott H: Pitch ranking ability of cochlear implant recipients: a comparison of sound-processing strategies. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;117:3126-3138.
7. Shannon R, Zeng F-G, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M: Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995;270:303-304.
8. Dorman M, Loizou P, Rainey R: Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. J Acoust Soc Am 1997;102:2403-2411.
9. Eddington D: Speech discrimination in deaf subjects with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 1980;68:885-891.
10. Wilson CF, Lawson D, Wolford R, Eddington D, Rabinowitz W: Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 1991;352:236-238.
11. Wilson B, Lawson D, Zerbi M: Advances in coding strategies for cochlear implants. Adv Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg 1995;9:105-129.
12. Loizou P, Poroy O, Dorman M: The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am 2000;108:790-802.
13. Brill S, Gstottner W, Helms J, Ilberg CV, Baumgartner W, Muller J, et al: Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast CIS strategy in the COMBI 40+. Am J Otol 1997;18:S104-S106.
14. Frijns J, Klop W, Bonnet R, Briare J: Optimizing the number of electrodes with high-rate stimulation of the Clarion CII cochlear implant. Acta Otolaryngol 2003;123:138-142.
15. Skinner M, Holden L, Whitford L, Plant K, Psarros C, Holden T: Speech recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults. Ear Hear 2002;23:207-223.
16. Vandali A, Whitford L, Plant K, Clark G: Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear 2000;21:608-624.
17. Friesen L, Shannon R, Cruz R: Effects of stimulation rate on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol 2005;10:169-184.
18. Kim H, Shim Y, Chung M, Lee Y: Benefit of ACE compared to CIS and SPEAK coding strategies. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2000;57:408-411.
19. Javel E: Acoustic and electrical encoding of temporal information; in Miller J, Spelman F (eds): Cochlear Implants: Models of the Electrically Stimulated Ear. NY, Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp 247-295.
20. Van den Honert C, Stypulkowski P: Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve II. Single fiber recordings. Hear Res 1984;14:225-243.
21. Rubinstein J, Wilson B, Finley C, Abbas P: Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hear Res 1999;127:108-118.
22. Litvak L, Delgutte B, Eddington D: Improved neural representation of vowels in electric stimulation using desynchronizing pulse trains. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;114:2099-2111.
23. Hong R, Rubinstein J: High-rate conditioning pulse trains in cochlear implants: dynamic range measures with sinusoidal stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;114:3327-3342.
24. Morse R, Evans E: Enhancement of vowel coding for cochlear implants by addition of noise. Nature 1996;2:928-932.
25. Zeng F-G, Fu Q, Morse R: Human hearing enhanced by noise. Brain Research 2001;869:251-255.
26. Boothroyd A, Erickson FN, Medwetsky L: The hearing aid input: a phonemic approach to assessing the spectral distribution of speech. Ear Hear 1994;6:432-442.
27. Zeng F-G, Grant G, Niparko J, Galvin J, Shannon R, Opie J, et al: Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. J Acoust Soc Am 2002;111:377-386.
28. Eddington D, Dobelle W, Brachman D, Mladevosky M, Parkin J: Auditory prosthesis research using multiple intracochlear stimulation in man. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 1978;87(suppl 53):1-39.
29. Zeng F-G, Shannon R: Loudness balance between acoustic and electric stimulation. Hear Res 1992;60:231-235.
30. Fu Q-J, Shannon R: Effect of acoustic dynamic range on phoneme recognition in quiet and noise by cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 1999;106:L65-L70.
31. Fu Q-J, Shannon R: Effect of amplitude nonlinearity on phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:2570-2577.
32. Fu Q-J, Shannon R: Phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users as a function of signal-to-noise ratio and nonlinear amplitude mapping. J Acoust Soc Am 1999;106:L18-L23.
33. Wilson B, Lawson D, Zerbi M, Wolford R: Speech Processors for Auditory Prostheses. NIH Project N01-DC-8-2105, Third Quarterly Progress Report 1999.
34. Zeng F-G, Galvin J: Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear 1999;20:60-74.
35. McKay CM, McDermott HJ, Clark GM: Pitch percepts associated with amplitude-modulated current pulse trains in cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am 1994;96:2664-2673.
36. Wilson B, Zerbi M, Finley C, Lawson D, van Honert C: Speech Processors for Auditory Prostheses. NIH Project N01-DC-5-2103, Eighth Quarterly Progress Report 1997.
37. Drullman R: Temporal envelope and fine structure cues for speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 1995;97:585-592.
38. Lobo A, Toledo F, Loizou P: The effect of envelope cutoff frequency on consonant and melody recognition by CI listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2002;112:2245.
39. Hartmann W. Signals, sounds and sensation. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1998.
40. Rosen S: Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1992;336:367-373.
41. Zeng F-G, Nie K, Stickney G, Kong Y, Vongphoe M, Weit C, et al: Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations. Proc Nat Acad Sciences 2005;102:2293-2298.
42. Smith ZM, Delgutte B, Oxenham AJ: Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature 2002;416:87-90.
43. Xu L, Pfingst B: Relative importance of temporal envelope and fine structure in lexical-tone perception. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;114:3204-3207.
44. Wilson B, Sun X, Schatzer R, Wolford R: Representation of fine structure or fine frequency information with cochlear implants. Int Congr Ser 2004;1273:3-6.
45. Skinner M, Holden L, Holden T: Effect of frequency boundary assignment on speech recognition with the SPEAK speech-coding strategy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995;104(suppl 166):307-311.
46. Fu Q-J, Shannon R: Frequency mapping in cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2002;23:339-348.
47. Fourakis M, Hawks J, Holden L, Skinner M, Holden T: Effect of frequency boundary assignment on vowel recognition with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. J Am Acad Audiol 2004;15:281-289.
48. Kasturi K, Loizou P: Effect of filter spacing and correct tonotopic representation on melody recognition: implications for cochlear implants. Proceedings of ARO, New Orleans, LA 2005.
49. Fant G: Speech Sounds and Features. Boston, MIT Press, 1973.
50. Zwicker E, Fastl H: Psychoacoustics, Facts and Models. Berlin, Springer Verlag, 1990.
51. Geurts L Wouters J: Better place-coding of the fundamental frequency in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;115:844-852.
52. Laneau J, Moonen M, Wouters J: Relative contributions of temporal and place pitch cues to fundamental frequency discrimination in cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;106:3606-3619.
53. McDermott H, McKay C, Vandali A: A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 1992;91:3367-3371.
54. Wilson B, Finley C, Farmer J, Lawson D, Weber B, Wolford R, et al: Comparative studies of speech processing strategies for cochlear implants. Laryngoscope 1998;98:1069-1077.
55. Wilson B, Finley C, Farmer J, Lawson D, Weber B, Wolford R, et al: Comparative studies of speech processing strategies for cochlear implants. Laryngoscope 1988;1069-1077.
56. Peterson G, Cooper F: Peakpicker: a bandwidth compression device. J Acoust Soc Am 1957;29:777A.
57. Cooper F, Liberman A, Borst J: Preliminary studies of speech produced by a pattern playback. J Acoust Soc Am 1950;22:678.
58. Kiefer J, Muller J: Speech understanding in quiet and in noise with the CIS speech coding strategy (Med-El Combi-40) compared to the multi-peak and SPEAK strategies. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 1996;58:127-135.
59. Dorman M, Loizou P, Spahr T, Maloff E: A comparison of the speech understanding provided by acoustic models of fixed-channel and channel-picking signal processors for cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2002;45:783-788.
60. Loizou P, Stickney G, Mishra L, Assmann P: Comparison of speech processing strategies used in the Clarion implant processor. Ear Hear 2003;24:12-19.
61. Balkany T, Esharaghi A, Yang N: Modioloar proximity of three perimodiolar cochlear implant electrodes. Acta Otolaryngol 2002;122:363-369.
62. Filipo M, Mancini P, Ballantyne D, Bosco E, D'Elia C: Short-term study of the effect of speech coding strategy on the auditory performance of pre- and post-lingually deafened adults implanted with the Clarion CII. Acta Otolaryngol 2004;124:368-370.
63. Ostroff J, David E, Shipp D, Chen J, Nedzelski J: Evaluation of the high-resolution coding strategy for the Clarion CII cochlear implant system. J Otolaryngol 2003;32:81-86.
64. Wilson B, Zerbi M, Lawson D: Speech processors for auditory prostheses. NIH Contract N01-DC-2-2401, 3rd Quarterly Progress Report, February 1-April 30 1993.
65. Donaldson G, Kreft H, Litvak L: Place-pitch discrimination of single- versus dual-electrode stimuli by cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;118:623-626.
66. Chorost M: My bionic quest for Bolero. Wired Magazine 2005;11:144-159.
67. Parkinson A, Arcaroli J, Staller S, Arndt P, Cosgriff A, Ebinger K: The Nucleus 24 Contour cochlear implant system: adult clinical trial results,'. Ear Hear 2002;23:41S-48S.
68. Bassim M, Buss E, Clark M, Kolln K, Pillsbury C, Pillsbury H, et al: MED-EL Combi-40+ cochlear implantation in adults. Laryngoscope 2005;115:1568-1573.
69. Kos M, Boex C, sigrist A, Guyot J, Pelizzone M: Measurements of electrode position inside the cochlea for different cochlear implant systems. Acta Otolaryngol 2005;125:474-480.
70. Zierhofer C: Cochlear implant system. United States Patent 5,983,139. 1999.
71. Barry J, Blamey P, Martin L, Lee K, Tang T, Ming Y, et al: Tone discrimination in Cantonese-speaking children using a cochlear implant. Clin Linguist Phon 2002;6:99.
72. Fu Q-J, Zeng F-G, Shannon R, Soli S: Importance of tonal envelope cues in Chinese speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:505-510.
73. Gfeller K, Lansing CR: Melodic, rhythmic, and timbral perception of adult cochlear implant users. J Speech Hear Res 1991;34:916-920.
74. Gfeller K, Woodworth G, Robin DA, Witt S, Knutson JF: Perception of rhythmic and sequential pitch patterns by normally hearing adults and adult cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 1997;18:252-260.
75. Tong Y, Clark G: Absolute identification of electric pulse rates and electrode positions by cochlear implant patients. J Acoust Soc Am 1985;77:1881-1888.
76. Townshend B, Cotter N, van Compernolle D, White RL: Pitch perception by cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am 1987;82:106-115.
77. Zeng F-G: Temporal pitch in electric hearing. Hear Res 2002;174:101-106.
78. Carlyon R, Wieringen A, Long C, Deeks J, Wouters J: Temporal pitch mechanisms in acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2002;112:621-623.
79. Laneau J, Wouters J: Multi-channel place pitch sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients. J Assoc Res Otorlaryngol 2004;5:285-294.
80. Jones P, McDermott H, Seligman, Millar J: Coding of voice source information in the Nucleus cochlear implant system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995;104:363-365.
81. Green T, Faulkner A, Rosen S: Spectral and temporal cues to pitch in noise-excited vocoder simulations of continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2002;112:2155-2164.
82. Green T, Faulkner A, Rosen S, Macherey O: Enhancement of temporal periodicity cues in cochlear implants: effects on prosodic perception and vowel identification. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;118:375-385.
83. Geurts L, Wouters J: Coding of the fundamental frequency in CIS processors for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;109:713-726.
84. Fishman K, Shannon R, Slattery W: Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant processor. J Speech Hear Res 1997;40:1201-1215.
85. Friesen L, Shannon R, Baskent D, Wang X: Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;110:1150-1163.
86. Fu Q-J, Shannon R, Wang X: Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:3586-3596.
87. Dorman M, Loizou P, Fitzke J, Tu Z: The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:3583-3585.
88. Griffiths L, Jim C: An alternative approach to linearly contrasted adaptive beamforming. IEEE Trans Antennas Propagation 1982;30:27-34.
89. Widrow B, Stearns S: Adaptive Signal Processing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1985.
90. Van Hoesel R, Clark G: Evaluation of a portable two-microphone adaptive beamforming speech processor with cochlear implant patients. J Acoust Soc Am 1995;97:2498-2503.
91. Hamacher V, Doering W, Mauer G, Fleischmann H, Hennecke J: Evaluation of noise reduction systems for cochlear implant users in different acoustic environments. Am J Otol 1997;18:S46-S49.
92. Margo V, Terry M, Schweitzer C, Shallop J: Results of take-home trial for a non-linear beam-former as a noise reduction strategy for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 1995;98:2984.
93. Wouters J, van den Berghe J: Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implantees with a two-microphone monaural adaptive noise reduction system. Ear Hear 2001;22:420-430.
94. Hochberg I, Boorthroyd A, Weiss M, Hellman S: Effects of noise and noise suppression on speech perception by cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 1992;13:263-271.
95. Weiss M: Effects of noise and noise reduction processing on the operation of the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant processor. J Rehab Res Dev 1993;30:117-128.
96. Yang L, Fu Q: Spectral subtraction-based speech enhancement for cochlear implant patients in background noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;117:1001-1004.
97. Loizou P, Lobo A, Hu Y: Subspace algorithms for noise reduction in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;118:2791-2793.
98. Hu Y, Loizou P: A generalized subspace approach for enhancing speech corrupted by colored noise. IEEE Trans on Speech and Audio Processing 2003;11:334-341.
99. Berouti M, Schwartz R, Makhoul J: Enhancement of speech corrupted by acoustic noise. Proc IEEE Int Conf Acoust, Speech, Signal Process 1979;208-211.
100. Toledo F, Loizou P, Lobo A: Subspace and envelope subtraction algorithms for noise reduction in cochlear implants. Conf of IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 2003;3:17-21.
101. Loizou P, Kasturi K, Turicchia L, Sarpeshkar R, Dorman M, Spahr T: Evaluation of the companding and other strategies for noise reduction in cochlear implants. Abstr of 2005 Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses 2005.
102. Dillon H: Hearing Aids. NY, Thieme, 2001.
103. Rangachari S, Loizou P: A noise estimation algorithm for highly non-stationary environments. Speech Commun 2006;28:220-231.
104. IEEE Subcommittee: IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measurements. IEEE Trans Audio and Electroacoustics 1969;17:225-246.
105. Geurts L, Wouters J: Enhancing the speech envelope of CIS processors for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 1999;105:2476-2484.
106. Vandali A: Emphasis of short-duration acoustic speech cues for cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;109:2049-2061.
107. Holden L, Vandali A, Skinner M, Fourakis M, Holden T: Speech recognition with the ACE and transient emphasis spectral maxima strategies in Nucleus 24 recipients. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005;48:681-701.
108. Turicchia L, Sarpeshkar R: A bio-inspired companding strategy for spectral enhancement. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing 2005;13:243-253.
109. Wilson B, Lawson D, Muller J, Tyler R, Kiefer J: Cochlear implants: some likely next steps. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2003;5:207-249.
110. McDermott H, McKay CM: Musical pitch perception with electrical stimulation of the cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 1997;101:1622-1631.
111. Munson B, Nelson P: Phonetic identification in quiet and in noise by listeners with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;118:2607-2617.
112. Qin M, Oxenham A: Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;114:446-454.
113. Stickney G, Zeng F-G, Litovsky R, Assmann P: Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;116:1081-1091.
114. Van Hoesel R, Tyler R: Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;113:1617-1630.
115. Kiefer J, Tillein J, von Ilberg C, Pfennigdorff T, Strurzebecher E: Fundamental aspects and first results of the clinical application of combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. Cochlear Implants - An update 2002;569-576.
116. Hartmann WM, Johnson D: Stream segregation and peripheral channeling. Music Percept 1991;9:155-184.
117. Hillenbrand J, Getty L, Clark M, Wheeler K: Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 1995;97:3099-3111.