Literature DB >> 19858722

Bimodal hearing benefit for speech recognition with competing voice in cochlear implant subject with normal hearing in contralateral ear.

Helen E Cullington1, Fan-Gang Zeng.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This project assessed electroacoustic benefit for speech recognition with a competing talker.
DESIGN: Using a cochlear implant subject with normal hearing in the contralateral ear, the contribution of low-pass and high-pass natural sound to speech recognition was systematically measured.
RESULTS: High-frequency sound did not improve performance, but low-frequency sound did, even when unintelligible and limited to frequencies below 150 Hz.
CONCLUSIONS: The low-frequency sound assists separation of the two talkers, presumably using the fundamental frequency cue. Extrapolating this finding to regular cochlear implant users may suggest that using a hearing aid on the contralateral ear will improve performance, even with limited residual hearing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 19858722      PMCID: PMC2803339          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181bc7722

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  10 in total

1.  Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech.

Authors:  Michael K Qin; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Unintelligible low-frequency sound enhances simulated cochlear-implant speech recognition in noise.

Authors:  Janice E Chang; John Y Bai; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.538

3.  The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Rene H Gifford; Anthony J Spahr; Sharon A McKarns
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 1.854

4.  Low-frequency speech cues and simulated electric-acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Christopher A Brown; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Binaural hearing after cochlear implantation in subjects with unilateral sensorineural deafness and tinnitus.

Authors:  Katrien Vermeire; Paul Van de Heyning
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2008-11-13       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise.

Authors:  M Nilsson; S D Soli; J A Sullivan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  A new fine structure speech coding strategy: speech perception at a reduced number of channels.

Authors:  Dominik Riss; Christoph Arnoldner; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Alexandra Kaider; Jafar-Sasan Hamzavi
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels.

Authors:  J Hillenbrand; L A Getty; M J Clark; K Wheeler
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Improved speech recognition in noise in simulated binaurally combined acoustic and electric stimulation.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.840

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

  10 in total
  18 in total

1.  The relative phonetic contributions of a cochlear implant and residual acoustic hearing to bimodal speech perception.

Authors:  Benjamin M Sheffield; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Fundamental frequency is critical to speech perception in noise in combined acoustic and electric hearing.

Authors:  Jeff Carroll; Stephanie Tiaden; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Shifting fundamental frequency in simulated electric-acoustic listening.

Authors:  Christopher A Brown; Nicole M Scherrer; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Comparing models of the combined-stimulation advantage for speech recognition.

Authors:  Christophe Micheyl; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Central masking with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Payton Lin; Thomas Lu; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Cochlear-implant spatial selectivity with monopolar, bipolar and tripolar stimulation.

Authors:  Ziyan Zhu; Qing Tang; Fan-Gang Zeng; Tian Guan; Datian Ye
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Comparison of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant users on speech recognition with competing talker, music perception, affective prosody discrimination, and talker identification.

Authors:  Helen E Cullington; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Aiding and occluding the contralateral ear in implanted children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder.

Authors:  Christina L Runge; Jamie Jensen; David R Friedland; Ruth Y Litovsky; Sergey Tarima
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  Preserved acoustic hearing in cochlear implantation improves speech perception.

Authors:  Sterling W Sheffield; Kelly Jahn; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.664

10.  The benefits of bimodal hearing: effect of frequency region and acoustic bandwidth.

Authors:  Sterling W Sheffield; René H Gifford
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2014-02-15       Impact factor: 1.854

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.