Effects of fine structure and extended low frequencies in pediatric cochlear implant recipients

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

Volumn 75, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 573-578

  Riss, Dominik ^a   Hamzavi, Jafar Sasan ^a   Katzinger, Michaela ^a   Baumgartner, Wolf Dieter ^a   Kaider, Alexandra ^a   Gstoettner, Wolfgang ^a   Arnoldner, Christoph ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Children; Cochlear implants; Fine structure; Frequency spectrum; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FINE STRUCTURE PROCESSING; GRAFT RECIPIENT; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; INFANT; LANGUAGE ABILITY; MALE; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCHOOL CHILD; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SIGNAL PROCESSOR; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DEAFNESS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INFANT; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; MALE; PITCH PERCEPTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; SAMPLING STUDIES; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH PRODUCTION MEASUREMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79952738623     PISSN: 01655876     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2011.01.022     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Hilbert D. Grundzüge einer allgemeinen Theorie der linearen Integralgleichungen 1912, Teubner, Leipzig.
2. Smith Z.M., Delgutte B., Oxenham A.J. Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature 2002, 416:87-90.
3. Zeng F.G., Nie K., Stickney G.S., Kong Y.Y., Vongphoe M., Bhargave A., et al. Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2005, 102:2293-2298.
4. Xu L., Pfingst B.E. Relative importance of temporal envelope and fine structure in lexical-tone perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 114:3024-3027.
5. Zeng F.G., Rebscher S., Harrison W.V., Sun X., Feng H. Cochlear implants: system design integration and evaluation. IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2008, 1:115-142.
6. Bonham B.H., Litvak L.M. Current focusing and steering: modeling, physiology, and psychophysics. Hear. Res. 2008, 242:141-153.
7. Han D., Liu B., Zhou N., Chen X., Kong Y., Liu H., et al. Lexical tone perception with HiResolution and HiResolution 120 sound-processing strategies in pediatric Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 2009, 30:169-177.
8. Nie K., Stickney G., Zeng F.G. Encoding frequency modulation to improve cochlear implant performance in noise. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2005, 52:64-73.
9. Throckmorton C.S., Selin Kucukoglu M., Remus J.J., Collins L.M. Acoustic model investigation of a multiple carrier frequency algorithm for encoding fine frequency structure: implications for cochlear implants. Hear. Res. 2006, 218:30-42.
10. C.M. Zierhofer, Electrical nerve stimulation based on channel specific sampling sequences, US Patent No. 6594525, 2003.
11. Wilson B.S., Finley C.C., Lawson D.T., Wolford R.D., Eddington D.K., Rabinowitz W.M. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 1991, 352:236-238.
12. Schatzer R., Krenmayr A., Au D.K., Kals M., Zierhofer C. Temporal fine structure in cochlear implants: preliminary speech perception results in Cantonese-speaking implant users. Acta Otolaryngol. 2010, 130:1031-1039.
13. Arnoldner C., Riss D., Brunner M., Durisin M., Baumgartner W.D., Hamzavi J.S. Speech and music perception with the new fine structure speech coding strategy: preliminary results. Acta Otolaryngol. 2007, 127:1298-1303.
14. Riss D., Arnoldner C., Reiss S., Baumgartner W.D., Hamzavi J.S. 1-year results using the Opus speech processor with the fine structure speech coding strategy. Acta Otolaryngol. 2009, 129:988-991.
15. Lorens A., Zgoda M., Obrycka A., Skarzynski H. Fine structure processing improves speech perception as well as objective and subjective benefits in pediatric MED-EL COMBI 40+ users. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2010, 74:1372-1378.
16. Hochmair-Desoyer I., Schulz E., Moser L., Schmidt M. The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. Am. J. Otol. 1997, 18:S83.
17. Biesalski P., Leitner H., Leitner E., Gangel D. Der Mainzer Kindersprachtest. HNO 1974, 22:160-161. (author's transl).
18. Buechner A., Brendel M., Krueger B., Frohne-Buchner C., Nogueira W., Edler B., et al. Current steering and results from novel speech coding strategies. Otol. Neurotol. 2008, 29:203-207.
19. Riss D., Arnoldner C., Baumgartner W.D., Kaider A., Hamzavi J.S. A new fine structure speech coding strategy: speech perception at a reduced number of channels. Otol. Neurotol. 2008, 29:784-788.
20. Wilson B.S., Dorman M.F. Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future. Hear. Res. 2008, 242:3-21.
21. Zhang T., Spahr A.J., Dorman M.F. Frequency overlap between electric and acoustic stimulation and speech-perception benefit in patients with combined electric and acoustic stimulation. Ear Hear. 2010, 31:195-201.
22. Buchner A., Schussler M., Battmer R.D., Stover T., Lesinski-Schiedat A., Lenarz T. Impact of low-frequency hearing. Audiol. Neurootol. 2009, 14(Suppl. 1):8-13.
23. Brown C.A., Bacon S.P. Achieving electric-acoustic benefit with a modulated tone. Ear Hear. 2009, 30:489-493.
24. Balkany T., Hodges A., Menapace C., Hazard L., Driscoll C., Gantz B., et al. Nucleus Freedom North American clinical trial. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2007, 136:757-762.