Effects of vowel context on the recognition of initial and medial consonants by cochlear implant users

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 27, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 658-677

  Donaldson, Gail S ^a   Kreft, Heather A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONSONANT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHONEME; PHONETICS; PROVOCATION TEST; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SCORING SYSTEM; SEX RATIO; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH ARTICULATION; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VOICE CHANGE; VOICE RECOGNITION SYSTEM; VOWEL;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHONETICS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33750616920     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.aud.0000240543.31567.54     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. 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.
2. Donaldson, G. S., & Nelson, D. A. (2000). Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 1645-1658.
3. Fu, Q.-J., & Shannon, R. V. (1998). Effects of amplitude nonlinearity on phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 2570-2577.
4. Fu, Q.-J., & Shannon, R. V. (2000a). Effects of dynamic range and amplitude mapping on phoneme recognition in Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users. Ear and Hearing, 21, 227-235.
5. Fu, Q.-J., & Shannon, R. V. (2000b). Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by Nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 589-597.
6. Guerts, L., & Wouters, J. (1999). Enhancing the speech envelope of continuous interleaved sampling processors for cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 2476-2484.
7. Henry, B. A., & Turner, C. W. (2003). The resolution of complex spectral patterns by cochlear implant and normal-hearing listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 2861-2873.
8. Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3099-3111.
9. Kurowski, K., & Blumstein, S. E. (1984). Perceptual integration of the murmur and formant transitions for place of articulations in nasal consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76, 383-390.
10. Loizou, P. C., Poroy, O., & Dorman, M. (2000). The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108, 790-802.
11. McKay, C. M., & McDermott, H. J. (1993). Perceptual performance of subjects with cochlear implants using the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor (SMSP) and the Mini Speech Processor (MSP). Ear and Hearing, 14, 350-367.
12. Miller, G. A., & Nicely, P. E. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 338-352.
13. Munson, B., Donaldson, G. S., Allen, S. L., Collison, E. A., & Nelson, D. A. (2003). Patterns of phoneme perception errors by listeners with cochlear implants as a function of overall speech perception ability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 925-935.
14. Nelson, D. A., Van Tasell, D. J., Schroder, A. C., Soli, S., & Levine, S. (1995). Electrode ranking of 'place-pitch' and speech recognition in electrical hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 98, 1987-1999.
15. Pearsons, K. S., Bennet, R. L., & Fidel, S. (1976). Speech levels in various environments. Bolt Beranek and Newman Report No. 321. Canoga Park, CA.
16. Peterson, G. E., & Barney, H. L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 175-184.
17. Pickett, J. M. (1999). The Acoustics of Speech Communication. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
18. Repp, B. H. (1986). Perception of the [m]-[n] distinction in CV syllables. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 79, 1987-1999.
19. Shannon, R. V., Jensvold, A., Padilla, M., Robert, M. E., & Wang, X. (1999). Consonant recordings for speech testing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, L71-L74.
20. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A., Demorest, M. E., & Fourakis, M. 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.
21. Van Tasell, D. J., Greenfield, D. G., Logemann, J. J., & Nelson, D. A. (1992). Temporal cues for consonant recognition: Training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92, 1247-1257.
22. Van Wieringen, A., & Wouters, J. (1999). Natural vowel and consonant recognition by Laura cochlear implantees. Ear and Hearing, 20, 89-103.
23. Vandali, A. E. Emphasis of short-duration acoustic speech cues for cochlear implant users. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2001;109, 2049-2061.
24. Xu, L., Thompson, C. S., & Pfingst, B. E. (2005). Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117, 3255-3267.