Use of s-shaped input-output functions for noise suppression in cochlear implants

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 402-411

  Kasturi, Kalyan ^a   Loizou, Philipos C ^a  

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; NOISE REDUCTION; PHONATION; SOUND INTENSITY; SPEECH ARTICULATION; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH RATE;

ACOUSTICS; ADULT; AGED; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NOISE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 34248211180     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31804793c4     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Boothroyd, A, Erickson, F. N., Medwetsky, L. (1994). The hearing aid input: a phonemic approach to assessing the spectral distribution of speech. Ear and Hearing, 6, 432-442.
2. Cooper, N. (2004). Compression in the peripheral auditory system, in Compression: From cochlea to cochlear implants, (S Bacon, R Fay, & A Popper, eds.), New York, Springer Verlag, 18-61.
3. Dillon, H. (2001). Hearing Aids NY, Thieme.
4. Drullman, R. (1995). Speech intelligibility in noise: relative contribution of speech elements above and below the speech level. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 98, 1796-1798.
5. Eddington, D., Dobelle, W., Brachman, D., Mladevosky, M., Parkin, J. (1978). Auditory prosthesis research using multiple intracochlear stimulation in man. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 87, 1-39.
6. Fu, Q.-J., Shannon, R. (1998). Effect of amplitude nonlinearity on phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 2570-2577.
7. Fu, Q.-J., Shannon, R. (1999). Phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users as a function of signal-to-noise ratio and nonlinear amplitude mapping. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, L18-L23.
8. Hohmann, V., Kollmeier, B. (1995). The effect of multichannel dynamic compression on speech intelligibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 1191-1195.
9. Hornsby, B., Ricketts, T. (2001). The effects of compression ratio, signal-to-noise ratio, and level on speech recognition in normalhearing listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 2964-2973.
10. IEEE Subcommittee (1969). IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measurements, IEEE Trans.Audio and Electroacoustics AU-17, 225-246.
11. Levitt, H. (2004). Compression Amplification, in Compression: From cochlea to cochlear implants. (S Bacon, R Fay, and A Popper , eds.), New York, Springer Verlag, 153-183.
12. Loizou, P., 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.
13. Loizou, P., Stickney, G., Mishra, L., Assmann, P. (2003). Comparison of speech processing strategies used in the Clarion implant processor. Ear and Hearing, 24, 12-19.
14. Nilsson, M., Soli, S., Sullivan, J. (1994). Development of 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.
15. Noordhoek, I., Drullman, R. (1997). Effect of reducing temporal intensity modulations on sentence intelligibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 498-502.
16. Plomp, R. (1988). The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83, 2322-2327.
17. Qin, M., Oxenham, A. (2003). Effects of simulated cochlear implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 446-454.
18. Rangachari, S., Loizou, P. (2006). A noise estimation algorithm for highly non-stationary environments. Speech Communication, 28, 220-231.
19. Ruggero, M., Rich, N., Recio, A., Narayan, S., Robles, L. (1997). Basilar-membrane responses to tones at the base of the chinchilla cochlea. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2151-2163.
20. Stickney, G., Zeng, F., Litovsky, R., Assmann, P. (2004). Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 1081-1091.
21. Villchur, E. (1973). Signal processing to improve speech intelligibility in perceptive deafness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 53, 1646-1657.
22. Villchur, E. (1989). Comments on "The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function" [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83, 2322-2327 (1988)]. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 86, 425-427.
23. Yund, E., Buckles, K. (1995). Enhanced speech perception at low signal-to-noise ratios with multichannel compression hearing aids. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 1224-1240.
24. Zeng, F.-G., Galvin, J. (1999). Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. Ear and Hearing, 20, 60-74.
25. Zeng, F.-G., Grant, G., Niparko, J., Galvin, J., Shannon, R., Opie, J., Segel, P. (2002). Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 377-386.
26. Zeng, F.-G., Shannon, R. (1992). Loudness balance between acoustic and electric stimulation. Hearing Research, 60, 231-235.
27. Wilson B., Lawson D., Zerbi M., Wolford R. (1999). Speech Processors for Auditory Prostheses, NIH Project N01-DC-8-2105, Third Quarterly Progress Report.