Understanding the effect of noise on electrical stimulation sequences in cochlear implants and its impact on speech intelligibility

Hearing Research

Volumn 299, Issue , 2013, Pages 79-87

  Qazi, Obaid ur Rehman ^a,b   van Dijk, Bas ^a   Moonen, Marc ^b   Wouters, Jan ^b  

^a Research and Development   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRIC CURRENT; ELECTROSTIMULATION; FREQUENCY MODULATION; HUMAN; NOISE; NOISE REDUCTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; STIMULUS RESPONSE;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COMPREHENSION; CORRECTION OF HEARING IMPAIRMENT; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84876488401     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: 18785891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.01.018     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Anzalone M., Calandruccio L., Doherty K., Carney L. Determination of the potential benefit of time-frequency gain manipulation. Ear Hearing 2006, 27(5):480-492.
2. Assman P.F., Summerfield Q. The contribution of waveform interactions to the perception of concurrent vowels. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 1994, 95:471-484.
3. Assman P.F., Summerfield Q. The perception of speech under adverse acoustic conditions. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research 2004, vol. 18:231-308. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. S. Greenberg, W.A. Ainsworth, N. Popper, R.R. Fay (Eds.).
4. Bacon S.P., Opie J.M., Montoya D.Y. The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 1998, 41:549-563.
5. Brungart D.S., Chang P.S., Simpson B.D., Wang D. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 2006, 352(6332):236-238.
6. Cochlear Technology ACE Speech Coding Strategy, Nucleus Technical Reference Manual 2002, Cochlear Corporation, Lane Cove, New SouthWales, Australia, Z43470 Issue 3.
7. Cochlear Technology ACE and CIS DSP Strategies, Software Requirements Specifications 2002, N95287F Issue 1, Cochlear Corporation, Lane Cove, New SouthWales, Australia.
8. Cochlear Technology Nucleus MATLAB Toolbox 2.11, Software User Manual 2002, N95246F Issue 1, Cochlear Corporation, Lane Cove, New SouthWales, Australia.
9. Cooke M.P. A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 2006, 119(3):1562-1573.
10. Dawson P.W., Mauger S.J., Hersbach A.A. Clinical Evaluation of Signal-toNoise Ratio Based Noise Reduction in Nucleus Cochlear Implant Recipients. Ear Hear 2011, 32(3):382-390.
11. Dorman M., Loizou P., Spahr T., Maloff E. A comparison of the speech understanding provided by acoustic models of fixed-channel and channel-picking signal processors for cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, Hearing Research 2002, 45(4):783-788.
12. Festen J.M., Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 1990, 88:1725-1736.
13. Francart T., Van Wieringen A., Wouters J. Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests. International Journal of Audiology 2010, 50(1):2-13.
14. Gnansia D., Pressnitzer D., Pean V., Meyer B., Lorenzi C. Intelligibility of interrupted and interleaved speech in normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implantees. Hearing Research 2010, 265(1-2):46-53.
15. Hochberg I., Boothroyd A., Weiss M., Hellman S. Effects of noise and noise suppression on speech perception by CI users. Ear Hearing 1992, 13:263-271.
16. Howard-Jones P.A., Rosen S. The perception of speech in fluctuating noise. Acustica 1993, 78:258-272.
17. Howard-Jones P.A., Rosen S. Uncomodulated glimpsing in " checkerboard" noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1993, 93:2915-2922.
18. Hu Y., Loizou P.C. A new sound coding strategy for suppressing noise in cochlear implants. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 2008, 124(1):498-509.
19. Hwang C.F., Chen H.C., Yang C.H., Peng J.P., Wengb C.H. Comparison of mandarin tone and speech perception between advanced combination encoder and continuous interleaved sampling speech-processing strategies in children. American Journal of Otolaryngology 2012, 33(3):338-344.
20. Kiefer J., Hohl S., Stürzebecher E., Pfennigdorff T., Gstoettner W. Comparison of speech recognition with different speech coding strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and ACE) and their relationship to telemetric measures of compound action potentials in the nucleus CI 24M CI system. Audiology 2001, 40(1):32-42.
21. Li N., Loizou P. Factors influencing glimpsing of speech in noise. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 2007, 122(2):1165-1172.
22. Li N., Loizou P. Factors influencing intelligibility of ideal binary-masked speech: Implications for noise reduction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2008, 123(3):1673-1682.
23. Loizou P.C. Signal-processing techniques for cochlear implants. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine 1999, 18(3):34-46.
24. Loizou P.C., Lobo A., Hu Y. Subspace algorithms for noise reduction in CI's. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 2005, 118(5):2791-2793.
25. Lorenzi C., Gilbert G., Carn H., Garnier S., Moore B.C.J. Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A 2006, 103:18866-18869.
26. Mauger S.J., Dawson P.W., Hersbach A.A. Perceptually optimised gain function for cochlear implant signal-to-noise ratio based noise reduction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2012, 131(1):327-336.
27. Miller G.A., Licklider J.C.R. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1950, 22:167-173.
28. Moore B.C.J. Coding of sounds in the auditory system and its relevance to signal processing and coding in CI's. Otology and Neurotology 2003, 24(2):243-254.
29. Nelson P.B., Jin S.H., Carney A.E., Nelson D.A. Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normalhearing listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2003, 113(2):961-968.
30. Nilsson M., Soli S.D., Sullivan J.A. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1994, 95:1085-1096.
31. Peters R.W., Moore B.C.J., Baer T. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearingimpaired and normally hearing people. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1998, 103:577-587.
32. Plomp R., Mimpen A. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold 19 for sentences. Audiology 1979, 18(1):43-52.
33. Qazi O.R., Dijk B.V., Moonen M., Wouter J. Performance of CI subjects using time frequency masking based noise reduction. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 2012, 59(5):1364-1373.
34. Qin M.K., Oxenham A.J. Effects of simulated cochlear implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1998, 114(1):446-454.
35. Roman N., Wang D. Pitch-based monaural segregation of reverberant speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2006, 120:458-469.
36. Roman N., Wang D., Brown G. Speech segregation based on sound localization. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2003, 114:2236-2252.
37. Seligman P.M., McDermott H.J. Architecture of the spectra 22 speech processor. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 1995, 104(suppl. 166):139-141.
38. Skinner M.W., Holden L.K., Whitford L.A.K., Plant L., Psarros C., Holden T.A. Speech recognition with the nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults. Ear Hearing 2002, 23(3):207-223.
39. Stickney G.S., Zeng F.G., Litovsky R., Assmann P. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2004, 116:1081-1091.
40. Van Wieringen A., Wouters J. LIST and LINT: sentences and numbers for quantifying 29 speech understanding in severely impaired listeners for Flanders and The Netherlands. International Journal of Audiology 2008, 47(6):348-355. 30.
41. Vary P., Martin R. Digital Speech Transmission: Enhancement, Coding and Error Concealment 2006, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
42. Wang D., Kjems U., Pedersen M.S., Boldt J.B., Lunner T. Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time frequency masking. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2009, 125:2336-2347.
43. Wilson B.S., Dorman M.F. Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future. Hearing Research 2008, 242:3-21.
44. Yang L.P., Fu Q.J. Spectral subtraction-based speech enhancement for CI patients in background noise. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 2005, 117(3):1001-1004.