Literature DB >> 11519582

Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.

L M Friesen1, R V Shannon, D Baskent, X Wang.   

Abstract

Speech recognition was measured as a function of spectral resolution (number of spectral channels) and speech-to-noise ratio in normal-hearing (NH) and cochlear-implant (CI) listeners. Vowel, consonant, word, and sentence recognition were measured in five normal-hearing listeners, ten listeners with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant, and nine listeners with the Advanced Bionics Clarion cochlear implant. Recognition was measured as a function of the number of spectral channels (noise bands or electrodes) at signal-to-noise ratios of + 15, + 10, +5, 0 dB, and in quiet. Performance with three different speech processing strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and SAS) was similar across all conditions, and improved as the number of electrodes increased (up to seven or eight) for all conditions. For all noise levels, vowel and consonant recognition with the SPEAK speech processor did not improve with more than seven electrodes, while for normal-hearing listeners, performance continued to increase up to at least 20 channels. Speech recognition on more difficult speech materials (word and sentence recognition) showed a marginally significant increase in Nucleus-22 listeners from seven to ten electrodes. The average implant score on all processing strategies was poorer than scores of NH listeners with similar processing. However, the best CI scores were similar to the normal-hearing scores for that condition (up to seven channels). CI listeners with the highest performance level increased in performance as the number of electrodes increased up to seven, while CI listeners with low levels of speech recognition did not increase in performance as the number of electrodes was increased beyond four. These results quantify the effect of number of spectral channels on speech recognition in noise and demonstrate that most CI subjects are not able to fully utilize the spectral information provided by the number of electrodes used in their implant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11519582     DOI: 10.1121/1.1381538

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  360 in total

1.  Studies on bilateral cochlear implants at the University of Wisconsin's Binaural Hearing and Speech Laboratory.

Authors:  Ruth Y Litovsky; Matthew J Goupell; Shelly Godar; Tina Grieco-Calub; Gary L Jones; Soha N Garadat; Smita Agrawal; Alan Kan; Ann Todd; Christi Hess; Sara Misurelli
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Cortical responses to cochlear implant stimulation: channel interactions.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-10-20

3.  Across-site variation in detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Li Xu
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-11-20

4.  Relative importance of temporal envelope and fine structure in lexical-tone perception.

Authors:  Li Xu; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Features of stimulation affecting tonal-speech perception: implications for cochlear prostheses.

Authors:  Li Xu; Yuhjung Tsai; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Production of contrast between sibilant fricatives by children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ann E Todd; Jan R Edwards; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  A psychophysical method for measuring spatial resolution in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Mahan Azadpour; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-10-15

8.  Masking release and the contribution of obstruent consonants on speech recognition in noise by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ning Li; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 9.  Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-06

10.  Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant users' phoneme, word and sentence recognition in quiet and in noise.

Authors:  Robert V Shannon; Rachel J Cruz; John J Galvin
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2010-07-17       Impact factor: 1.854

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.