A new fine structure speech coding strategy: Speech perception at a reduced number of channels

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 784-788

  Riss, Dominik ^a   Arnoldner, Christoph ^a   Baumgartner, Wolf Dieter ^a   Kaider, Alexandra ^a   Hamzavi, Jafar Sasan ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Fine structure; Number of channels; Speech coding strategy; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTINUOUS INTERLEAVED SAMPLING; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRODE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; FINE STRUCTURE PROCESSING; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH PERCEPTION; DISEASE COURSE; IMPLANTATION; INSTRUMENTATION; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESIS;

ADULT; AGED; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 62349117330     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: 15374505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31817fe00f     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Hilbert D. Grundzüge einer allgemeinen Theorie der linearen Integralgleichungen. Leipzig, Germany: Teubner, 1912.
2. Wilson BS, Schatzer R, Lopez-Poveda EA, Sun X, Lawson DT, Wolford RD. Two new directions in speech processor design for cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2005;26:73-81.
3. Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, Wolford RD, Eddington DK, Rabinowitz WM. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 1991;352:236-8.
4. Zierhofer CM. Electrical nerve stimulation based on channel specific sampling sequences. US Patent No 6594525;2003.
5. Arnoldner C, Riss D, Brunner M, Durisin M, Baumgartner WD, Hamzavi JS. Speech and music perception with the new fine structure speech coding strategy: preliminary results. Acta Otolaryngol 2007;8:1-6.
6. Balkany T, Hodges A, Menapace C, et al. Nucleus Freedom North American clinical trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;136: 757-62.
7. Frijns JHM, Klop WMC, Bonnet RM, Briaire JJ. Optimizing the number of electrodes with high-rate stimulation of the clarion CII cochlear implant. Acta Otolaryngol 2003;123:138-42.
8. Fishman KE, Shannon RV, Slattery WH. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1997;40: 1201-15.
9. Shannon RV, FU Q-J, Galvin J III. The number of spectral channels required for speech recognition depends on the difficulty of the listening situation. Acta Otolaryngol 2004;S50-4.
10. Smith ZM, Delgutte B, Oxenham AJ. Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature 2002;416:87-90.
11. Arnoldner C, Riss D, Baumgartner WD, Kaider A, Hamzavi JS. Cochlear implant channel separation and its influence on speech perception - implications for a new electrode design. Audiol Neurootol 2007;12:313-24.
12. Baskent D, Shannon RV. Interactions between cochlear implant electrode insertion depth and frequency-place mapping. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;117:1405-16.
13. Garnham C, O'Driscoll M, Ramsden R, Saeed S. Speech understanding in noise with a Med-El COMBI 40+ cochlear implant using reduced channel sets. Ear Hear 2002;23:540-52.