Literature DB >> 12691223

The relative importance of amplitude, temporal, and spectral cues for cochlear implant processor design.

Robert V Shannon1.   

Abstract

Speech understanding with cochlear implants has improved steadily over the last 25 years, and the success of implants has provided a powerful tool for understanding speech recognition in general. Comparing speech recognition in normal-hearing listeners and in cochlear-implant listeners has revealed many important lessons about the types of information necessary for good speech recognition--and some of the lessons are surprising. This paper presents a summary of speech perception research over the last 25 years with cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners. As long as the speech is audible, even the relatively severe amplitude distortion has only a mild effect on intelligibility. Temporal cues appear to be useful for speech intelligibility only up to about 20 Hz. Whereas temporal information above 20 Hz may contribute to improved quality, it contributes little to speech understanding. In contrast, the quantity and quality of spectral information appear to be critical for speech understanding. Only four spectral "channels" of information can produce good speech understanding, but more channels are required for difficult listening situations. Speech understanding is sensitive to the placement of spectral information along the cochlea. In prosthetic devices, in which the spectral information can be delivered to any cochlear location, it is critical to present spectral information to the normal acoustic tonotopic location for that information. If there is a shift or distortion of 2 to 3 mm between frequency and cochlear place, speech recognition is decreased dramatically.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12691223     DOI: 10.1044/1059-0889(2002/013)

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Audiol        ISSN: 1059-0889            Impact factor:   1.493


  10 in total

1.  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

2.  Speech Rate Normalization and Phonemic Boundary Perception in Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Brittany N Jaekel; Rochelle S Newman; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  The perception of emotion and focus prosody with varying acoustic cues in cochlear implant simulations with varying filter slopes.

Authors:  Daan J van de Velde; Niels O Schiller; Vincent J van Heuven; Claartje C Levelt; Joost van Ginkel; Mieke Beers; Jeroen J Briaire; Johan H M Frijns
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  The role of spectral resolution, working memory, and audibility in explaining variance in susceptibility to temporal envelope distortion.

Authors:  Evelyn Davies-Venn; Pamela Souza
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 1.664

5.  Relationships Among Peripheral and Central Electrophysiological Measures of Spatial and Spectral Selectivity and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Rachel A Scheperle; Paul J Abbas
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 6.  Auditory midbrain implant: research and development towards a second clinical trial.

Authors:  Hubert H Lim; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  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

8.  Interactions between unsupervised learning and the degree of spectral mismatch on short-term perceptual adaptation to spectrally shifted speech.

Authors:  Tianhao Li; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 9.  Encoding sound in the cochlea: from receptor potential to afferent discharge.

Authors:  Mark A Rutherford; Henrique von Gersdorff; Juan D Goutman
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 5.182

10.  Investigating Cortical Responses to Noise-Vocoded Speech in Children with Normal Hearing Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS).

Authors:  Faizah Mushtaq; Ian M Wiggins; Pádraig T Kitterick; Carly A Anderson; Douglas E H Hartley
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-09-28
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.