Literature DB >> 12199407

A comparison of the speech understanding provided by acoustic models of fixed-channel and channel-picking signal processors for cochlear implants.

Michael F Dorman1, Philipos C Loizou, Anthony J Spahr, Erin Maloff.   

Abstract

Vowels, consonants, and sentences were processed by two cochlear-implant signal-processing strategies-a fixed-channel strategy and a channel-picking strategy-and the resulting signals were presented to listeners with normal hearing for identification. At issue was the number of channels of stimulation needed in each strategy to achieve an equivalent level of speech recognition in quiet and in noise. In quiet, 8 fixed channels allowed a performance maximum for the most difficult stimulus material. A similar level of performance was reached with a 6-of-20 channel-picking strategy. In noise, 10 fixed channels allowed a performance maximum for the most difficult stimulus material. A similar level of performance was reached with a 9-of-20 strategy. Both strategies are capable of providing a very high level of speech recognition. Choosing between the two strategies may, ultimately, depend on issues that are independent of speech recognition-such as ease of device programming.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12199407     DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/063)

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  10 in total

Review 1.  Speech Understanding in Complex Listening Environments by Listeners Fit With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Rene H Gifford
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 2.  Cochlear implants matching the prosthesis to the brain and facilitating desired plastic changes in brain function.

Authors:  Blake S Wilson; Michael F Dorman; Marty G Woldorff; Debara L Tucci
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.453

3.  Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future.

Authors:  Blake S Wilson; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-06-22       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  A daily alternating method for comparing different signal-processing strategies in hearing aids and in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Richard S Tyler; Shelley A Witt; Camille C Dunn; Ann E Perreau
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 1.664

5.  The Effects of Dynamic-range Automatic Gain Control on Sentence Intelligibility With a Speech Masker in Simulated Cochlear Implant Listening.

Authors:  Nathaniel J Spencer; Kate Helms Tillery; Christopher A Brown
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Emergent literacy in kindergartners with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Susan Nittrouer; Amanda Caldwell; Joanna H Lowenstein; Eric Tarr; Christopher Holloman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Use of an adaptive-bandwidth protocol to measure importance functions for simulated cochlear implant frequency channels.

Authors:  Nathaniel A Whitmal; Kristina DeRoy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.482

8.  Sparse Nonnegative Matrix Factorization Strategy for Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Hongmei Hu; Mark E Lutman; Stephan D Ewert; Guoping Li; Stefan Bleeck
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 3.293

9.  The cochlear implant and possibilities for narrowing the remaining gaps between prosthetic and normal hearing.

Authors:  Blake S Wilson
Journal:  World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-01-03

10.  Word Recognition and Frequency Selectivity in Cochlear Implant Simulation: Effect of Channel Interaction.

Authors:  Pierre-Antoine Cucis; Christian Berger-Vachon; Hung Thaï-Van; Ruben Hermann; Stéphane Gallego; Eric Truy
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 4.241

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.