Envelope versus fine structure speech coding strategy: A crossover study

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 32, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 1094-1101

  Riss, Dominik ^a   Hamzavi, Jafar Sasan ^a   Selberherr, Andreas ^a   Kaider, Alexandra ^a   Blineder, Michaela ^a   Starlinger, Veronika ^a   Gstoettner, Wolfgang ^a   Arnoldner, Christoph ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Frequency range; Music perception; Speech coding strategy; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADULT; AGED; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 80052261935     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: 15374505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31822a97f4     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, et al. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 1991;352:236-8. (Pubitemid 21912323)
2. Wilson BS, Dorman MF. Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future. Hear Res 2008;242:3-21.
3. Hilbert D. Grundzüge einer allgemeinen Theorie der linearen Integralgleichungen. Leipzig, Germany: Teubner, 1912.
4. Smith ZM, Delgutte B, Oxenham AJ. Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature 2002;416:87-90. (Pubitemid 34215405)
5. Bonham BH, Litvak LM. Current focusing and steering: modeling, physiology, and psychophysics. Hear Res 2008;242:141-53.
6. Buechner A, Brendel M, Krueger B, et al. Current steering and results from novel speech coding strategies. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:203-7. (Pubitemid 351170475)
7. Berenstein CK, Mens LH, Mulder JJ, et al. Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations. Ear Hear 2008;29:250-60. (Pubitemid 351640524)
8. Zeng FG, Rebscher S, Harrison WV, et al. Cochlear implants: system design, integration and evaluation. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 2008; 1:115-42.
9. Zeng FG, Nie K, Stickney GS, et al. Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005;102:2293-8. (Pubitemid 40279369)
10. Nie K, Stickney G, Zeng FG. Encoding frequency modulation to improve cochlear implant performance in noise. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2005;52:64-73. (Pubitemid 40065610)
11. Throckmorton CS, Selin Kucukoglu M, Remus JJ, et al. Acoustic model investigation of a multiple carrier frequency algorithm for encoding fine frequency structure: implications for cochlear implants. Hear Res 2006;218:30-42. (Pubitemid 44107662)
12. Zierhofer CM, inventor; MED-EL Elektromedizinishce Geraete GmbH, assignee. Electrical nerve stimulation based on channel specific sampling sequences. US patent 6 594 525. July 15, 2003.
13. Schatzer R, Krenmayr A, Au DK, et al. Temporal fine structure in cochlear implants: preliminary speech perception results in Cantonese-speaking implant users. Acta Otolaryngol 2010;130:1031-9.
14. Brown CA, Bacon SP. Fundamental frequency and speech intelligibility in background noise. Hear Res 2010;266:52-9.
15. Arnoldner C, Riss D, Brunner M, et al. Speech and music perception with the new fine structure speech coding strategy: preliminary results. Acta Otolaryngol 2007;127:1298-303. (Pubitemid 350175283)
16. Riss D, Arnoldner C, Reiss S, et al. 1-year results using the Opus speech processor with the fine structure speech coding strategy. Acta Otolaryngol 2009;129:988-91.
17. Hochmair-Desoyer I, Schulz E, Moser L, et al. The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. Am J Otol 1997;18:S83. (Pubitemid 27512634)
18. Lorens A, Zgoda M, Obrycka A, et al. 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;74:1372-8.
19. Riss D, Arnoldner C, Baumgartner WD, et al. A new fine structure speech coding strategy: speech perception at a reduced number of channels. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:784-8.
20. Vermeire K, Kleine Punte A, Van de Heyning P. Better speech recognition in noise with the fine structure processing coding strategy. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2010;72:305-11.
21. Magnusson L. Comparison of the fine structure processing (FSP) strategy and the CIS strategy used in the MED-EL cochlear implant system: Speech intelligibility and music sound quality. Int J Audiol 2011;50:279-87.
22. Zhang T, Spahr AJ, Dorman MF. 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.
23. Buchner A, Schussler M, Battmer RD, et al. Impact of low-frequency hearing. Audiol Neurootol 2009;14:8-13.
24. Xu L, Pfingst BE. Relative importance of temporal envelope and fine structure in lexical-tone perception. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;114: 3024-7. (Pubitemid 37553613)