Literature DB >> 1474222

Consonant recognition by some of the better cochlear-implant patients.

R S Tyler1, B C Moore.   

Abstract

Fifty-four of the better cochlear-implant patients from Europe and the United States were tested on two consonant recognition tests using nonsense syllables. One was produced in an accent appropriate for their own language by a male and a female talker. Recorded tokens of /ibi, idi, igi, ipi, iti, iki, ifi, ivi, ifi, isi, izi, imi, ini/ were presented. With the French syllables, six patients with the Chorimac device averaged 18% correct (6%-29%). With the German syllables, nine patients with the 3M/Vienna device averaged 34% correct (17%-44%), ten patients with the Nucleus device (tested in Hannover) averaged 31% correct (19%-42%), and ten patients with the Duren/Cologne device averaged 27% correct (10%-56%). With the English syllables, ten patients with the Nucleus device (tested in the United States) averaged 42% correct (29%-62%), and nine patients with the Symbion device averaged 46% correct (31%-69%). An information-transmission analysis and sequential information-transfer analysis of the confusions suggested that different implants provided differing amounts of feature information. The place of articulation feature was typically the most difficult to code for all implants. In the second test a male and a female talker recorded the stimuli /ibi, idi, igi, imi, ini, ifi, isi, izi/ in a single manner that was appropriate for all three languages. Six patients with the Chorimac device averaged 27% (13%-48%), ten patients with the Duren/Cologne implant averaged 29% (15%-75%), ten patients with the Nucleus device (tested in Hannover) averaged 40% (25%-58%), ten patients with the Nucleus device (tested in the United States) averaged 49% (40%-60%), nine patients with the Symbion device averaged 61% (40%-75%), and nine patients with the 3M/Vienna device averaged 41% (29%-52%) correct.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1474222     DOI: 10.1121/1.404203

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


  5 in total

1.  Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition.

Authors:  Li Xu; Catherine S Thompson; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 2.  [Early hearing experience and sensitive developmental periods].

Authors:  A Kral
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  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

4.  Evaluation of different signal processing options in unilateral and bilateral cochlear freedom implant recipients using R-Space background noise.

Authors:  Alison M Brockmeyer; Lisa G Potts
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.664

5.  Home-Based Speech Perception Monitoring for Clinical Use With Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Astrid van Wieringen; Sara Magits; Tom Francart; Jan Wouters
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 4.677

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.