Hearing loss and the limits of amplification

Audiology and Neurotology

Volumn 11, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2006, Pages 2-5

  Turner, Christopher W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Electric stimulation; Hair cell damage; Residual acoustic hearing; Sensorineural hearing loss

Indexed keywords

AUDIOGRAPHY; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONFERENCE PAPER; DISEASE SEVERITY; ELECTROSTIMULATION; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; INNER EAR DISEASE; NONHUMAN; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION;

AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; NOISE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 33750357198     PISSN: 14203030     EISSN: 14219700     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000095606     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Ching T, Dillon H, Bryne D: Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;103:1128-1140.
2. Erber NP: Speech envelope cues as an acoustic aid to lipreading for profoundly deaf children. J Acoust Soc Am 1972;51:1224-1227.
3. Fu QJ, Shannon RF, 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.
4. Gantz BJ, Turner CW, Gfeller KE, Lowder MW: Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing. Laryngoscope 2005;115:796-802.
5. Henry BA, Turner CW, Behrens A: Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired and cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;118:1111-1121.
6. Hogan C, Turner CW: High-frequency amplification: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:432-441.
7. Liberman MC, Dodds LW: Single-neuron labeling and chronic cochlear pathology. III. Stereocilia damage and alterations of threshold tuning curves. Hear Res 1984;16:55-74.
8. Miller GA, Nicely PE: An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. J Acoust Soc Am 1955;27:338-352.
9. Miller RL, Schilling JR, Franck KR, Young ED: Effects of acoustic trauma on the representation of the vowel/eh/ in cat auditory nerve. J Acoust Soc Am 1997;101:3602-3616.
10. Qin MK, Oxenham AJ: Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;114:446-454.
11. Santi PA, Ruggero MA, Nelson DA, Turner CW: Kanamycin and bumetanide ototoxicity; anatomical, physiological, and behavioral correlates. Hear Res 1982;7:261-279.
12. Skinner MW: Speech intelligibility in noise-induced hearing loss: effects of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am 1980;67:306-317.
13. Summers V: Do tests for cochlear dead regions provide important information for fitting hearing aids? J Acoust Soc Am 2004;115:1420-1423.
14. Turner CW, Brus SL: Providing low- and mid-frequency speech information to listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;109:2999-3006.
15. Turner CW, Gantz BJ, Vidal C, Behrens A: Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;115:1729-1735.
16. Turner CW, Souza PE, Forget LN: Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1995;97:2568-2576.
17. Vickers D, Moore BCJ, Baer T: Effects of low-pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;110:1164-1175.