Results with a cochlear implant channel-picking strategy based on "Selected Groups"

Hearing Research

Volumn 260, Issue 1-2, 2010, Pages 63-69

  Kals, Mathias ^a   Schatzer, Reinhold ^a   Krenmayr, Andreas ^a   Vermeire, Katrien ^a   Visser, Daniel ^a   Bader, Paul ^a   Neustetter, Christian ^a   Zangerl, Matthias ^a   Zierhofer, Clemens ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

Author keywords

Channel interaction; Cochlear implant; Electrical stimulation; Selected groups; Speech coding

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HEARING DISORDER; HUMAN; MALE; NOISE; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

AGED; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; REHABILITATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 73649090338     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2009.11.012     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Brill S.-M., Gstöttner W., Helms J., von Ilberg C., Baumgartner W., Müller J., and Kiefer J. Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+. Am. J. Otol. 18 6 Suppl. (1997) 104-106
2. Dorman M.-F., Loizou P.-L., Spahr A.-J., and Maloff E. A comparison of the speech understanding provided by acoustic models of fixed-channel and channel-picking signal processors for cochlear implants. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 45 (2002) 783-788
3. Fastl H. A masking noise for speech intelligibility tests. Proc. TC Hearing, Acoust. Soc. Jpn. H-93 (1993) 70
4. Fishman K.E., Shannon R.-V., and Slattery W.-H. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 40 (1997) 1201-1215
5. Friesen L.-M., Shannon R.-V., Baskent D., and 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 (2001) 1150-1163
6. Fu Q.-J., and Shannon R.-V. Effects of dynamic range and amplitude mapping on phoneme recognition in Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 21 (2000) 227-235
7. Garnham C., O'Driscoll M., Ramsden R., and Saeed S. Speech understanding in noise with a Med-El COMBI 40+ cochlear implant using reduced channel sets. Ear Hear. 23 (2002) 540-552
8. Kollmeier B., and Wesselkamp M. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102 (1997) 2412-2421
9. Lawson, D.-T., Wilson, B.-S., Zerbi, M., Finley, C.-C., 1996. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Third Quarterly Progress Report NIH contract N01-DC-5-2103, Center for Auditory Prosthesis Research, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
10. Loizou P.-C., Poroy O., and Dorman M. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108 (2000) 790-802
11. Loizou P.-C., Dorman M., and Fitzke J. The effect of reduced dynamic range on speech understanding: implications for patients with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 21 (2000) 25-31
12. McDermott H.-J., McKay C.-M., and Vandali A.-E. A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91 (1992) 3367-3371
13. McKay C.-M., McDermott H.-J., Vandali A.-E., and Clark G. Preliminary results with a six spectral maxima sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus multiple-electrode cochlear implant. J. Otolaryng. Soc. Austral. 6 (1991) 354-359
14. McKay C.-M., and McDermott H.-J. The perceptual effects of current pulse duration in electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106 (1999) 998-1009
15. Nie K., Barco A., and Zeng F.-G. Spectral and temporal cues in cochlear implant speech perception. Ear Hear. 27 (2006) 208-217
16. Nogueira W., Büchner A., and Edler B. A psychoacoustic "NofM"-type speech coding strategy for cochlear implants. EURASIP J. Appl. Signal Process. 2005 (2005) 3044-3059
17. Pfingst B.-E., Zwolan T.-A., and Holloway L.-A. Effects of stimulus configuration on psychophysical operating levels and on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Hear. Res. 112 (1997) 247-260
18. Plant K.-L., Whitford L.-A., Psarros C.-E., and Vandali A.-E. Parameter selection and programming recommendations for the ACE and CIS speech-processing strategies in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Cochlear Implant Int. 3 (2002) 104-125
19. Wilson B.-S., Finley C.-C., Farmer J.-C., Lawson D.-T., Weber B.-A., Wolford R.-D., Kenan P.-D., White M.-W., Merzenich M.-M., and Schindler R.-A. Comparative studies of speech processing strategies for cochlear implants. Laryngoscope 98 (1988) 1069-1077
20. Wilson B.-S., Finley C.-C., Lawson D.-T., Wolford R.-D., Eddington D.-K., and Rabinowitz W.-M. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 352 (1991) 236-238
21. Wilson B.-S., Lawson D.-T., Zerbi M., Finley C.-C., and Wolford R.-D. New processing strategies in cochlear implantation. Am. J. Otol. 16 (1995) 669-675
22. Wilson B.-S., Finley C.-C., Lawson D.-T., and Zerbi M. Temporal representations with cochlear implants. Am. J. Otol. 18 6 Suppl. (1997) 30-34
23. Zeng F.-G., Galvin J.-J., and Zhang C. Encoding loudness by electric stimulation of the auditory nerve. Neuroreport 9 (1998) 1845-1848
24. Zeng F.-G., and Galvin J.-J. Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear. 20 (1999) 60-74
25. Zierhofer, C., 2007. Electrical Stimulation of the Acoustic Nerve Based on Selected Groups. Patent US 72,838,76.
26. Ziese M., Stutzel A., von Specht H., Begall K., Freigang B., Sroka S., and Nopp P. Speech understanding with the CIS and the n-of-m strategy in the MED-EL COMBI 40+ system. ORL J. Otorhinolaryngol. Relat. Spec. 62 (2000) 321-329