Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users

JARO - Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 384-392

  Won, Jong Ho ^a,c   Drennan, Ward R ^a,b   Rubinstein, Jay T ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c University of Washington   (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Spectral resolution; Speech perception in noise

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; MEASUREMENT; NOISE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECIPIENT; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPECTROSCOPY; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDITORY CORTEX; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PSYCHOMETRICS; SPEECH; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 34547664926     PISSN: 15253961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10162-007-0085-8     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bilger RC, Nuetzel JM, Rabinowitz WM, Rzeczkowski C. Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J. Speech. Hear. Res. 27:32-48, 1984.
2. Byrne D, Dillon H, Tran K, Arlinger S, et al. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96:2108-2120, 1994.
3. Donaldson GS, Nelson DA. Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107:1645-1658, 2000.
4. Dorman MF, Loizou PC. Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 18:113-114, 1997.
5. Dorman MF, Loizou PC. The identification of consonants and vowels by cochlear implant patients using a 6-channel Continuous Interleaved Sampling processor and by normal-hearing subjects using simulations of processors with two to nine channels. Ear Hear. 19:162-166, 1998.
6. Dorman MF, Loizou PC, 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. 104:3583-3585, 1998.
7. Drennan WR, Won JH, Dasika VK, Rubinstein JT. Effects of temporal fine-structure on the lateralization of speech and on speech understanding in noise. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2007.
8. Friesen LM, Shannon RV, 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. 110:1150-1163, 2001.
9. Fu QJ, Shannon RV, Wang X. Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104:3586-3596, 1998.
10. Fu QJ, Nogaki G. Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. J Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 6:19-27, 2005.
11. Harris RW. Speech audiometry materials compact disk. Provo, UT, Brigham Young University, 1991.
12. Henry BA, McKay CM, McDermott HJ, Clark GM. The relationship between speech perception and electrode discrimination in cochlear implantees. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108:1269-1280, 2000.
13. Henry BA, Turner CW. The resolution of complex spectral patterns in cochlear implant and normal hearing listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113:2861-2873, 2003.
14. 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. 118:1111-1121, 2005.
15. Hong RS, Turner CW. Pure-tone auditory stream segregation and speech perception in noise in cochlear implant recipients. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120:360-374, 2006.
16. Leek M, Dorman M, Summerfield Q. Minimum spectral contrast for vowel identification by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 81:148-154, 1987.
17. Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 49:467-477, 1971.
18. Lilliefors H. On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 62:399-402, 1967.
19. Litvak L, Spahr T, Saoji A, Fridman G. Relationship between perception of spectral ripple and speech recognition in cochlear implant and vocoder listeners. 29th Annual MidWinter Research Meeting of the ARO. 85, 2006.
20. Loizou PC, Poroy O. Minimum spectral contrast needed for vowel identification by normal hearing and cochlear implant listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110:1619-1627, 2001.
21. Nelson DA, Van Tassell DJ, Schroder AC, Soli S, Levine S. Electrode ranking of place pitch and speech recognition in electrical hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 98:1987-1999, 1995.
22. Parikh G, Loizou PC. The influence of noise on vowel and consonant cues. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118:3874-3888, 2005.
23. Peterson G, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J. Speech. Hear. Disord. 27:62-70, 1962.
24. Qin MK, Oxenham AJ. Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114:446-454, 2003.
25. Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science. 270:303-304, 1995.
26. Supin AY, Popov VV, Milekhina ON, Tarakanov MB. Frequency resolving power measured by rippled noise. Hear. Res. 78:31-40, 1994.
27. Turner CW, Gantz BJ, Vidal C, Behrens A, Henry BA. Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115:1729-1735, 2004.