Literature DB >> 27960006

Experiments on Auditory-Visual Perception of Sentences by Users of Unilateral, Bimodal, and Bilateral Cochlear Implants.

Michael F Dorman1, Julie Liss2, Shuai Wang2, Visar Berisha2, Cimarron Ludwig2, Sarah Cook Natale2.   

Abstract

Purpose: Five experiments probed auditory-visual (AV) understanding of sentences by users of cochlear implants (CIs). Method: Sentence material was presented in auditory (A), visual (V), and AV test conditions to listeners with normal hearing and CI users.
Results: (a) Most CI users report that most of the time, they have access to both A and V information when listening to speech. (b) CI users did not achieve better scores on a task of speechreading than did listeners with normal hearing. (c) Sentences that are easy to speechread provided 12 percentage points more gain to speech understanding than did sentences that were difficult. (d) Ease of speechreading for sentences is related to phrase familiarity. (e) Users of bimodal CIs benefit from low-frequency acoustic hearing even when V cues are available, and a second CI adds to the benefit of a single CI when V cues are available. (f) V information facilitates lexical segmentation by improving the recognition of the number of syllables produced and the relative strength of these syllables. Conclusions: Our data are consistent with the view that V information improves CI users' ability to identify syllables in the acoustic stream and to recognize their relative juxtaposed strengths. Enhanced syllable resolution allows better identification of word onsets, which, when combined with place-of-articulation information from visible consonants, improves lexical access.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27960006      PMCID: PMC5399766          DOI: 10.1044/2016_JSLHR-H-15-0312

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  50 in total

Review 1.  The processing of audio-visual speech: empirical and neural bases.

Authors:  Ruth Campbell
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2008-03-12       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  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

3.  Some normative data on lip-reading skills (L).

Authors:  Nicholas A Altieri; David B Pisoni; James T Townsend
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition.

Authors:  A Boothroyd; S Nittrouer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 5.  Prediction and constraint in audiovisual speech perception.

Authors:  Jonathan E Peelle; Mitchell S Sommers
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2015-03-20       Impact factor: 4.027

6.  Auditory-visual fusion in speech perception in children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Efrat A Schorr; Nathan A Fox; Virginie van Wassenhove; Eric I Knudsen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-12-08       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Comparing the performance plateau in adult cochlear implant patients using HINT and AzBio.

Authors:  Sean T Massa; Michael J Ruckenstein
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Spoken word recognition by eye.

Authors:  Edward T Auer
Journal:  Scand J Psychol       Date:  2009-10

9.  The natural statistics of audiovisual speech.

Authors:  Chandramouli Chandrasekaran; Andrea Trubanova; Sébastien Stillittano; Alice Caplier; Asif A Ghazanfar
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2009-07-17       Impact factor: 4.475

10.  Patient performance over eighteen months with the Ineraid intracochlear implant.

Authors:  R F Gray; S J Quinn; I Court; Z Vanat; D M Baguley
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  1995-09
View more
  9 in total

1.  Relating quality of life to outcomes and predictors in adult cochlear implant users: Are we measuring the right things?

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Michael S Harris; Lauren Boyce; Kara Vasil; Taylor Wucinich; David B Pisoni; Jodi Baxter; Christin Ray; Valeriy Shafiro
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 3.325

2.  Relations Between Self-reported Executive Functioning and Speech Perception Skills in Adult Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Tirth R Patel; Irina Castellanos
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Speech Understanding in Noise for Adults With Cochlear Implants: Effects of Hearing Configuration, Source Location Certainty, and Head Movement.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Louise Loiselle; Sarah Natale; Sterling W Sheffield; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Mary S Dietrich; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 4.  Speech Understanding in Complex Listening Environments by Listeners Fit With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Rene H Gifford
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Visual Reliance During Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users and Candidates.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Kara J Vasil; Christin Ray
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 1.664

Review 6.  Multisensory Integration in Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Ryan A Stevenson; Sterling W Sheffield; Iliza M Butera; René H Gifford; Mark T Wallace
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  How Does Quality of Life Relate to Auditory Abilities? A Subitem Analysis of the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire.

Authors:  Kara J Vasil; Jessica Lewis; Terrin Tamati; Christin Ray; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 1.664

8.  Speech Understanding in Noise by Patients With Cochlear Implants Using a Monaural Adaptive Beamformer.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Sarah Natale; Anthony Spahr; Erin Castioni
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 2.297

9.  Multimodal and Spectral Degradation Effects on Speech and Emotion Recognition in Adult Listeners.

Authors:  Chantel Ritter; Tara Vongpaisal
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.