Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients in speech reception in the presence of background music

Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology

Volumn 121, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 782-791

  Gfeller, Kate ^a   Turner, Christopher ^a,b   Oleson, Jacob ^a   Kliethermes, Stephanie ^a   Driscoll, Virginia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA HOSPITALS AND CLINICS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Music; Pitch; Preserved hearing; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; ELECTRODE; ELECTROSTIMULATION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MUSIC; PITCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 84871545483     PISSN: 00034894     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/000348941212101203     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Wilson B. Cochlear implant technology. In: Niparko JK, Kirk KI, Mellon NK, Robbins AM, Tucci DL, Wilson BS, eds. Cochlear implants: principles and practices. New York, NY: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2000:109-18.
2. Gantz BJ, Turner C, Gfeller KE, Lowder MW. Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing. Laryngoscope 2005;115:796-802.
3. Qin MK, Oxenham AJ. Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;114:446-54.
4. Turner CW, Gantz BJ, Vidal C, Behrens A, Henry BA. Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;115:1729-35.
5. Nelson PB, Jin S-H. Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;115:2286-94.
6. Stickney GS, Zeng F-G, Litovsky R, Assmann P. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;116:1081-91.
7. Henry BA, Turner CW, Behrens A. Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;118:1111-21.
8. Turner CW. Hearing loss and the limits of amplification. Audiol Neurootol 2006;11(suppl 1):2-5.
9. Fu QJ, Shannon RV, Wang X. Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:3586-96.
10. Friesen LM, Shannon RV, 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;110:1150-63.
11. Gfeller KE. Music: a human phenomenon and therapeutic tool. In: Davis WB, Gfeller KE, Thaut MH, eds. An introduction to music therapy theory and practice. 3rd ed. Silver Spring, Md: American Music Therapy Association, 2008:41-75.
12. Gfeller K, Christ A, Knutson JF, Witt S, Murray KT, Tyler RS. Musical backgrounds, listening habits, and aesthetic enjoyment of adult cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol 2000;11:390-406.
13. Gfeller K, Jiang D, Oleson JJ, Driscoll V, Knutson JE. Temporal stability of music perception and appraisal scores of adult cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol 2010;21:28-34.
14. Ekström S-R, Borg E. Hearing speech in music. Noise Health 2011;13:277-85.
15. Gantz BJ, Turner CW. Combining acoustic and electric hearing. Laryngoscope 2003;113:1726-30.
16. Woodson EA, Dempewolf RD, Gubbels SP, et al. Longterm hearing preservation after microsurgical excision of vestibular schwannoma. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:1144-52.
17. Gantz BJ, Hansen MR, Turner CW, Oleson JJ, Reiss LA, Parkinson AJ. Hybrid 10 clinical trial: preliminary results. Audiol Neurootol 2009;14(suppl 1):32-8.
18. Harris RW. Speech audiometry materials compact disk. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1991.
19. Gfeller K, Turner C, Oleson J, et al. Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise. Ear Hear 2007;28:412-23.
20. Chasin M. Music and hearing aids. Hearing J 2003;56:36-38, 40, 41.
21. McDermott H. Benefits of combined acoustic and electric hearing for music and pitch perception. Semin Hear 2011;32:103-14.
22. Qin MK, Oxenham AJ. Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelopevocoder processed speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2006;119:2417-26.
23. Assmann PF, Summerfield Q. Modeling the perception of concurrent vowels: vowels with different fundamental frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 1990;88:680-97.
24. Brokx JPL, Nooteboom SG. Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices. J Phonetics 1982;10:23-36.
25. Dorman MF, Gifford RH, Spahr AJ, McKarns SA. The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies. Audiol Neurootol 2008;13:105-12.
26. Dillier N. Combining cochlear implants and hearing instruments. In: Proceedings of the Third International Pediatric Conference, Chicago, Ill, 2004:163-72.
27. Kong YY, Stickney GS, Zeng FG. Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;117:1351-61.
28. El Fata F, James CJ, Laborde ML, Fraysse B. How much residual hearing is "useful" for music perception with cochlear implants? Audiol Neurootol 2009;14(suppl 1):14-21.
29. Gfeller K, Turner C, Mehr M, et al. Recognition of familiar melodies by adult cochlear implant recipients and norma-lhearing adults. Cochlear Implants Int 2002;3:29-53.
30. Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. Recognition of multiply degraded speech by young and elderly listeners. J Speech Hear Res 1995;38:1150-6.
31. Martin JS, Jerger JF. Some effects of aging on central auditory processing. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005;42(suppl 2):25-44.