Cochlear implant melody recognition as a function of melody frequency range, harmonicity, and number of electrodes

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 160-168

  Singh, Sonya ^a   Kong, Ying Yee ^b   Zeng, Fan Gang ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONSONANT; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRODE; FEMALE; FREQUENCY ANALYSIS; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; MALE; PITCH; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; VOWEL; ALGORITHM; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ELECTRODE IMPLANT; HEARING; MIDDLE AGED; MUSIC; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PROCEDURES; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHMS; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; ELECTRODES, IMPLANTED; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MUSIC; PATTERN RECOGNITION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; PITCH PERCEPTION; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 69049108716     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31819342b9     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Boex, C., Baud, L., Cosendai, G., et al. (2006). Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 7, 110-124. (Pubitemid 43800621)
2. Carroll, J., & Zeng, F. G. (2007). Fundamental frequency discrimination and speech perception in noise in cochlear implant simulations. Hear Res, 231, 42-53. (Pubitemid 47211721)
3. Dai, H. (2000). On the relative influence of individual harmonics on pitch judgment. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 953-959.
4. Donaldson, G. S., Kreft, H. A., & Litvak, L. (2005). Place-pitch discrimination of single- versus dual-electrode stimuli by cochlear implant users (L). J Acoust Soc Am, 118, 623-626.
5. Fearn, R., & Wolfe, J. (2000). Relative importance of rate and place: experiments using pitch scaling techniques with cochlear implants recipients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl, 185, 51-53. (Pubitemid 32005806)
6. Fishman, K. E., Shannon, R. V., & Slattery, W. H. (1997). Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 40, 1201-1215.
7. Friesen, L. M., Shannon, R. V., Baskent, D., et al. (2001). 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. (Pubitemid 32734748)
8. Garnham, C., O'Driscoll, M., Ramsden, R., et al. (2002). Speech understanding in noise with a Med-El COMBI 40+ cochlear implant using reduced channel sets. Ear Hear, 23, 540-552. (Pubitemid 35448636)
9. Geurts, L., & Wouters, J. (2001). Coding of the fundamental frequency in continuous interleaved sampling processors for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 713-726. (Pubitemid 32144005)
10. Geurts, L., & Wouters, J. (2004). Better place-coding of the fundamental frequency in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 115, 844-852. (Pubitemid 38200671)
11. Gfeller, K., & Lansing, C. R. (1991). Melodic, rhythmic, and timbral perception of adult cochlear implant users. J Speech Hear Res, 34, 916-920.
12. Gfeller, K., Turner, C., Mehr, M., et al. (2002). Recognition of familiar melodies by adult cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults. Cochlear Implants Int, 3, 29-53. (Pubitemid 34521078)
13. Green, T., Faulkner, A., & Rosen, S. (2002). Spectral and temporal cues to pitch in noise-excited vocoder simulations of continuous-interleaved- sampling cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 2155-2164. (Pubitemid 35222482)
14. Green, T., Faulkner, A., & Rosen, S. (2004). Enhancing temporal cues to voice pitch in continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 2298-2310. (Pubitemid 39391632)
15. Green, T., Faulkner, A., Rosen, S., et al. (2005). Enhancement of temporal periodicity cues in cochlear implants: effects on prosodic perception and vowel identification. J Acoust Soc Am, 118, 375-385. (Pubitemid 40981493)
16. Greenwood, D. D. (1990). A cochlear frequency-position function for several species-29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am, 87, 2592-2605.
17. Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., et al. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 3099-3111.
18. Hillman, T., Badi, A. N., Normann, R. A., et al. (2003). Cochlear nerve stimulation with a 3-dimensional penetrating electrode array. Otol Neurotol, 24, 764-768. (Pubitemid 37122543)
19. Kasturi, K., & Loizou, P. C. (2007). Effect of filter spacing on melody recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, EL29-EL34. (Pubitemid 47205553)
20. Kiefer, J., von Ilberg, C., Rupprecht, V., et al. (2000). Optimized speech understanding with the continuous interleaved sampling speech coding strategy in patients with cochlear implants: effect of variations in stimulation rate and number of channels. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 109, 1009-1020. (Pubitemid 30835802)
21. Kong, Y. Y., Cruz, R., Jones, J. A., et al. (2004). Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. Ear Hear, 25, 173-185. (Pubitemid 38451766)
22. Kong, Y. Y., Stickney, G. S., & Zeng, F. G. (2005). Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 1351-1361. (Pubitemid 40358004)
23. Laneau, J., Wouters, J., & Moonen, M. (2004). Relative contributions of temporal and place pitch cues to fundamental frequency discrimination in cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 3606-3619. (Pubitemid 40029941)
24. Laneau, J., Wouters, J., & Moonen, M. (2006). Improved music perception with explicit pitch coding in cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol, 11, 38-52. (Pubitemid 43087558)
25. Loizou, P. C., Stickney, G., Mishra, L., et al. (2003). Comparison of speech processing strategies used in the Clarion implant processor. Ear Hear, 24, 12-19.
26. McDermott, H. J. (2004). Music perception with cochlear implants: a review. Trends Amplif, 8, 49-82. (Pubitemid 39435144)
27. McDermott, H. J., McKay, C. M., & Vandali, A. E. (1992). A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 3367-3371.
28. McKay, C. M., McDermott, H. J., & Clark, G. M. (1994). Pitch percepts associated with amplitude-modulated current pulse trains in cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am, 96, 2664-2673.
29. Nie, K, Barco, A., & Zeng, F.-G. (2006). Spectral and temporal cues in cochler implant speech perception. Ear Hear, 27, 208-217. (Pubitemid 44378661)
30. Nimmons, G. L., Kang, R. S., Drennan, W. R., et al. (2008). Clinical assessment of music perception in cochlear implant listeners. Otol Neurotol, 29, 149-155. (Pubitemid 351170465)
31. Oxenham, A. J., Bernstein, J. G., & Penagos, H. (2004). Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 101, 1421-1425.
32. Pijl, S. (1995). Musical pitch perception with pulsatile stimulation of single electrodes in patients implanted with the Nucleus cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl, 166, 224-227.
33. Qin, M. K., & Oxenham, A. J. (2005). Effects of envelope-vocoder processing on F0 discrimination and concurrent-vowel identification. Ear Hear, 26, 451-460.
34. Remez, R. E., Rubin, P. E., Pisoni, D. B., et al. (1981). Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science, 212, 947-949.
35. Ritsma, R. J. (1967). Frequencies dominant in the perception of the pitch of complex sounds. J Acoust Soc Am, 42, 191-198.
36. Schouten, J. F., Ritsma, R. J., & Cardozo, B. L. (1962). Pitch of the residue. J Acoust Soc of Am, 34, 1418-1424.
37. Shannon, R. V., Jensvold, A., Padilla, M., et al. (1999). Consonant recordings for speech testing. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, L71-L74.
38. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F. G., Kamath, V., et al. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303-304.
39. Smith, Z. M., Delgutte, B., & Oxenham, A. J. (2002). Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature, 416, 87-90. (Pubitemid 34215405)
40. Spahr, A. J., & Dorman, M. F. (2004). Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 130, 624-628.
41. Townshend, B., Cotter, N., Van Compernolle, D., et al. (1987). Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am, 82, 106-115. (Pubitemid 17114943)
42. Vandali, A. E. (2001). Emphasis of short-duration acoustic speech cues for cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 2049-2061. (Pubitemid 32441295)
43. Vandali, A. E., Whitford, L. A., Plant, K. L., et al. (2000). Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear, 21, 608-624.
44. Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., Lawson, D. T., et al. (1991). Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature, 352, 236-238.
45. Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., Lawson, D. T., et al. (1997). Temporal representations with cochlear implants. Am J Otol, 18(6 Suppl), S30-S34.
46. Xu, L., Tsai, Y., & Pfingst, B. E. (2002). Features of stimulation affecting tonal-speech perception: Implications for cochlear prostheses. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 247-258. (Pubitemid 34747759)
47. Zatorre, R. J., Belin, P., & Penhune, V. B. (2002). Structure and function of auditory cortex: music and speech. Trends Cogn Sci, 6, 37-46. (Pubitemid 34081845)
48. Zeng, F. G. (2002). Temporal pitch in electric hearing. Hear Res, 174, 101-106.
49. Zeng, F. G. (2004). Auditory Prostheses: Past, Present, and Future. In F. G. Zeng, A. N. Popper, & R. R. Fay (Eds.). Cochlear Implants: Auditory Prostheses and Electric Hearing (Vol. 20, pp, 1-13). New York: Springer-Verlag.
50. Zeng, F. G., Nie, K., Stickney, G. S., et al. (2005). Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 102, 2293-2298. (Pubitemid 40279369)