Literature DB >> 18681497

Effects of modulation wave shape on modulation frequency discrimination with electrical hearing.

David M Landsberger.   

Abstract

Amplitude modulations of pulsitile stimulation can be used to convey pitch information to cochlear implant users. One variable in designing cochlear implant speech processors is the choice of modulation waveform used to convey pitch information. Modulation frequency discrimination thresholds were measured for 100 Hz modulations with four waveforms (sine, sawtooth, a sharpened sawtooth, and square). Just-noticeable differences (JNDs) were similar for all but the square waveform, which often produced larger JNDs. The results suggest that a sine, sawtooth, and sharpened sawtooth waveforms are likely to provide similar pitch discrimination within a speech processing strategy.

Mesh：

Year:  2008        PMID： 18681497      PMCID： PMC2809681          DOI： 10.1121/1.2947624

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


  21 in total

1.  Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system.

Authors:  A E Vandali; L A Whitford; K L Plant; G M Clark
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers.

Authors:  Ginger S Stickney; Fan-Gang Zeng; Ruth Litovsky; Peter Assmann
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Processing F0 with cochlear implants: Modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Shu-Chen Peng
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-23       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B S Wilson; C C Finley; D T Lawson; R D Wolford; D K Eddington; W M Rabinowitz
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1991-07-18       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Evaluation of the Nucleus Spectra 22 processor and new speech processing strategy (SPEAK) in postlinguistically deafened adults.

Authors:  L A Whitford; P M Seligman; C E Everingham; T Antognelli; M C Skok; R D Hollow; K L Plant; E S Gerin; S J Staller; H J McDermott
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 1.494

6.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.

Authors:  H Levitt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1971-02       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues.

Authors:  R V Shannon; F G Zeng; V Kamath; J Wygonski; M Ekelid
Journal:  Science       Date:  1995-10-13       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Architecture of the Spectra 22 speech processor.

Authors:  P Seligman; H McDermott
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  1995-09

9.  Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2002-09-16       Impact factor: 1.837

10.  Enhancing temporal cues to voice pitch in continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants.

Authors:  Tim Green; Andrew Faulkner; Stuart Rosen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 1.840
View more
  10 in total

1.  Modulation rate discrimination using half-wave rectified and sinusoidally amplitude modulated stimuli in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Heather A Kreft; Andrew J Oxenham; David A Nelson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Temporal Envelope Coding by Inferior Colliculus Neurons with Cochlear Implant Stimulation.

Authors:  Kenneth E Hancock; Yoojin Chung; Martin F McKinney; Bertrand Delgutte
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-07-17

3.  Modulation frequency discrimination with modulated and unmodulated interference in normal hearing and in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Heather A Kreft; David A Nelson; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-04-30

4.  Asymmetric temporal envelope encoding: Implications for within- and across-ear envelope comparison.

Authors:  Sean R Anderson; Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Modulation frequency discrimination with single and multiple channels in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  John J Galvin; Sandy Oba; Deniz Başkent; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Temporal-pitch sensitivity in electric hearing with amplitude modulation and inserted pulses with short inter-pulse intervals.

Authors:  Martin J Lindenbeck; Bernhard Laback; Piotr Majdak; Sridhar Srinivasan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Frequency change detection and speech perception in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Fawen Zhang; Gabrielle Underwood; Kelli McGuire; Chun Liang; David R Moore; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Cochlear Implant Rate Pitch and Melody Perception as a Function of Place and Number of Electrodes.

Authors:  Vijay Marimuthu; Brett A Swanson; Robert Mannell
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-04-19       Impact factor: 3.293

9.  Pure tone discrimination with cochlear implants and filter-band spread.

Authors:  Luise Wagner; Reyhan Altindal; Stefan K Plontke; Torsten Rahne
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-10-12       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Encoding a Melody Using Only Temporal Information for Cochlear-Implant and Normal-Hearing Listeners.

Authors:  Ann E Todd; Griet Mertens; Paul Van de Heyning; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.