Improving virtual channel discrimination in a multi-channel context

Hearing Research

Volumn 286, Issue 1-2, 2012, Pages 19-29

  Srinivasan, Arthi G ^a,b   Shannon, Robert V ^a,b   Landsberger, David M ^a  

^a HOUSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b University of Southern California   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; ELECTRODE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NOISE REDUCTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SOUND INTENSITY; SOUND TRANSMISSION; SPECTRAL SENSITIVITY;

ADULT; AGED; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; ELECTRODES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 84859629037     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: 18785891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2012.02.011     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Berenstein C.K., Mens L.H.M., Mulder J.J.S., Vanpouke F.J. Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations. Ear Hear. 2008, 29:250-260.
2. Bierer J.A., Faulkner K.F. Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interface: partial tripolar, single-channel thresholds and psychophysical tuning curves. Ear Hear. 2010, 31:247-258.
3. Bierer J.A., Middlebrooks J.C. Auditory cortical images of cochlear-implant stimuli: dependence on electrode configuration. J. Neurophysiol. 2002, 87:478-492.
4. Brendel M., Buechner A., Krueger B., Frohne-Buechner C., Lenarz T. Evaluation of the harmony sound processor in combination with the speech coding strategy HiRes 120. Otol. Neurotol. 2008, 29:199-202.
5. Briaire J.J., Frijns J.H. Field patterns in a 3D tapered spiral model of the electrically stimulated cochlea. Hear. Res. 2000, 148:18-30.
6. Busby P.A., Battmer R.D., Pesch J. Electrophysiological spread of excitation and pitch perception for dual and single electrodes using the nucleus freedom cochlear implant. Ear Hear. 2008, 29:853-864.
7. Donaldson G.S., Kreft H.A., Litvak L. Place-pitch discrimination of single- versus dual-electrode stimuli by cochlear implant users (L). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005, 118:623-626.
8. Donaldson G.S., Dawson P.K., Borden L.Z. Within-subjects comparison of the HiRes and Fidelity120 speech processing strategies: speech perception and its relation to place-pitch sensitivity. Ear Hear. 2011, 32(2):238-250.
9. Firszt J.B., Koch D.B., Downing M., Litvak L. Current steering creates additional pitch percepts in adult cochlear implant recipients. Otol. Neurotol. 2007, 28:629-636.
10. Friesen L.M., Shannon R.V., Baskent D., 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. 2001, 110:1150-1163.
11. Fu Q.J., Chinchilla S., Nogaki G., Galvin J.J. Voice gender identification by cochlear implant users: the role of spectral and temporal resolution. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005, 118:1711-1718.
12. Fu Q.J., Nogaki G. Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2005, 6:19-27.
13. Fu Q.J., Shannon R.V., Wang X. Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1998, 104:3586-3596.
14. Henry B.A., McKay C.M., McDermott H.J., Clark G.M. The relationship between speech perception and electrode discrimination in cochlear implantees. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2000, 108:1269-1280.
15. Henry B.A., Turner C.W. The resolution of complex spectral patterns by cochlear implant and normal-hearing listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 113:2861-2873.
16. Henry B.A., Turner C.W., Behrens A. Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005, 118:1111-1121.
17. Holden L.K., Skinner M.W., Holden T.A., Demorest M.E. Effects of stimulation rate with the nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. Ear Hear 2002, 23:463-476.
18. Hughes M.L., Abbas P.J. The relation between electrophysiologic channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implant recipients. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2006, 119:1527-1537.
19. Landsberger D.M., Srinivasan A.G. Virtual channel discrimination is improved by current focusing in cochlear implant recipients. Hear Res. 2009, 254:34-41.
20. Landsberger D.M., Padilla M., Srinivasan A.G. Reducing current spread using current focusing in cochlear implant users. Hear Res. 2012, 284:16-24.
21. Lazard D.S., Bordure P., Lina-Granade G., Magnan J., Meller R., Meyer B., Radafy E., Roux P.E., Gnansia D., Pean V., Truy E. Speech perception performance for 100 post-lingually deaf adults fitted with neurelec cochlear implants: comparison between Digisonic(R) Convex and Digisonic(R) SP devices after a 1-year follow-up. Acta Otolaryngol. 2010, 130:1267-1273.
22. Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1971, 49(Suppl. 2):467.
23. Litvak L.M., Spahr A.J., Emadi G. Loudness growth observed under partially tripolar stimulation: model and data from cochlear implant listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 122:967-981.
24. Litvak L.M., Spahr A.J., Saoji A.A., Fridman G.Y. Relationship between perception of spectral ripple and speech recognition in cochlear implant and vocoder listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 122:982-991.
25. Loizou P.C., Poroy O. Minimum spectral contrast needed for vowel identification by normal hearing and cochlear implant listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2001, 110:1619-1627.
26. Luo X., Landsberger D.M., Padilla M., Srinivasan A.G. Encoding pitch contours using current steering. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2010, 128:1215-1223.
27. Nelson D.A., Van Tasell D.J., Schroder A.C., Soli S., Levine S. Electrode ranking of " place pitch" and speech recognition in electrical hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1995, 98:1987-1999.
28. Saoji A.A., Litvak L.M., Hughes M.L. Excitation patterns of simultaneous and sequential dual-electrode stimulation in cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear 2009, 30:559-567.
29. Saoji A.A., Litvak L.M. Use of " phantom electrode" technique to extend the range of pitches available through a cochlear implant. Ear Hear 2010, 31:693-701.
30. Shannon R.V., Zeng F.G., Kamath V., Wygonski J., Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995, 270:303-304.
31. Shannon R.V., Fu Q.J., Galvin J. The number of spectral channels required for speech recognition depends on the difficulty of the listening situation. Acta Otolaryngol. Suppl. 2004, 50-54.
32. Smith Z.M., Delgutte B., Oxenham A.J. Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature 2002, 416:87-90.
33. Snyder R.L., Bierer J.A., Middlebrooks J.C. Topographic spread of inferior colliculus activation in response to acoustic and intra-cochlear electric stimulation. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2004, 5:305-322.
34. Spelman F.A., Pfingst B.E., Clopton B.M., Jolly C.N., Rodenhiser K.L. Effects of electrical current configuration on potential fields in the electrically stimulated cochlea: field models and measurements. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl. 1995, 166:131-136.
35. Srinivasan A.G., Landsberger D.M., Shannon R.V. Current focusing sharpens local peaks of excitation in cochlear implant stimulation. Hear Res. 2010, 270:89-100.
36. Throckmorton C.S., Collins L.M. Investigation of the effects of temporal and spatial interactions on speech-recognition skills in cochlear-implant subjects. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1999, 105:861-873.
37. Vandali A.E., Whitford L.A., Plant K.L., Clark G.M. Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear. 2000, 21:608-624.
38. van den Honert C., Kelsall D.C. Focused intracochlear electric stimulation with phased array channels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 121:3703-3716.
39. Whitford L.A., Seligman P.M., Everingham C.E., Antognelli T., Skok M.C., Hollow R.D., Plant K.L., Gerin E.S., Staller S.J., McDermott H.J., Gibson W.R., Clark G.M. Evaluation of the Nucleus Spectra 22 processor and new speech processing strategy (SPEAK) in postlinguistically deafened adults. Acta Otolaryngol. 1995, 115:629-637.
40. Won J.H., Drennan W.R., Rubinstein J.T. Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2007, 8:384-392.
41. Xu L., Thompson C.S., Pfingst B.E. Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005, 117:3255-3267.
42. Zwolan T.A., Collins L.M., Wakefield G.H. Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1997, 102:3673-3685.