Literature DB >> 23145706

Channel interaction limits melodic pitch perception in simulated cochlear implants.

Joseph D Crew1, John J Galvin, Qian-Jie Fu.   

Abstract

In cochlear implants (CIs), melodic pitch perception is limited by the spectral resolution, which in turn is limited by the number of spectral channels as well as interactions between adjacent channels. This study investigated the effect of channel interaction on melodic contour identification (MCI) in normal-hearing subjects listening to novel 16-channel sinewave vocoders that simulated channel interaction in CI signal processing. MCI performance worsened as the degree of channel interaction increased. Although greater numbers of spectral channels may be beneficial to melodic pitch perception, the present data suggest that it is also important to improve independence among spectral channels.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23145706      PMCID: PMC3494451          DOI: 10.1121/1.4758770

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


  15 in total

1.  Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.

Authors:  L M Friesen; R V Shannon; D Baskent; X Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Rachel Cruz; J Ackland Jones; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Influence of pitch, timbre and timing cues on melodic contour identification with a competing masker (L).

Authors:  Meimei Zhu; Bing Chen; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs.

Authors:  M F Dorman; P C Loizou; D Rainey
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Selectivity of neural stimulation in the auditory system: a comparison of optic and electric stimuli.

Authors:  Agnella D Izzo; Eul Suh; Jyoti Pathria; Joseph T Walsh; Donna S Whitlon; Claus-Peter Richter
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.170

7.  Vocal emotion recognition by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; John J Galvin
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2007-12

8.  A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later.

Authors:  D D Greenwood
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 9.  Music perception with cochlear implants: a review.

Authors:  Hugh J McDermott
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2004

10.  Melodic contour identification by cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu; Geraldine Nogaki
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  24 in total

1.  Spectral and temporal analysis of simulated dead regions in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Gary L Jones; Il Joon Moon; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-03-05

2.  Vocoder Simulations Explain Complex Pitch Perception Limitations Experienced by Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Anahita H Mehta; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-07-21

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.  Speech Perception with Spectrally Non-overlapping Maskers as Measure of Spectral Resolution in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Erin R O'Neill; Heather A Kreft; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-11-19

5.  Accommodation of gender-related phonetic differences by listeners with cochlear implants and in a variety of vocoder simulations.

Authors:  Matthew B Winn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Assessing the Electrode-Neuron Interface with the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential, Electrode Position, and Behavioral Thresholds.

Authors:  Lindsay DeVries; Rachel Scheperle; Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-29

Review 7.  How We Hear: The Perception and Neural Coding of Sound.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 24.137

Review 8.  Auditory implant research at the House Ear Institute 1989-2013.

Authors:  Robert V Shannon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Weighting of Prosodic and Lexical-Semantic Cues for Emotion Identification in Spectrally Degraded Speech and With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Margaret E Richter; Monita Chatterjee
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 Nov-Dec 01       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  An evaluation framework for research platforms to advance cochlear implant/hearing aid technology: A case study with CCi-MOBILE.

Authors:  Ram C M C Shekar; John H L Hansen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.