Literature DB >> 28618807

The effect of presentation level and stimulation rate on speech perception and modulation detection for cochlear implant users.

Tim Brochier1, Hugh J McDermott2, Colette M McKay2.   

Abstract

In order to improve speech understanding for cochlear implant users, it is important to maximize the transmission of temporal information. The combined effects of stimulation rate and presentation level on temporal information transfer and speech understanding remain unclear. The present study systematically varied presentation level (60, 50, and 40 dBA) and stimulation rate [500 and 2400 pulses per second per electrode (pps)] in order to observe how the effect of rate on speech understanding changes for different presentation levels. Speech recognition in quiet and noise, and acoustic amplitude modulation detection thresholds (AMDTs) were measured with acoustic stimuli presented to speech processors via direct audio input (DAI). With the 500 pps processor, results showed significantly better performance for consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant words in quiet, and a reduced effect of noise on sentence recognition. However, no rate or level effect was found for AMDTs, perhaps partly because of amplitude compression in the sound processor. AMDTs were found to be strongly correlated with the effect of noise on sentence perception at low levels. These results indicate that AMDTs, at least when measured with the CP910 Freedom speech processor via DAI, explain between-subject variance of speech understanding, but do not explain within-subject variance for different rates and levels.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28618807      PMCID: PMC5457292          DOI: 10.1121/1.4983658

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


  34 in total

1.  Frequency-to-electrode allocation and speech perception with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Colette M McKay; Katherine R Henshall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant users' phoneme, word and sentence recognition in quiet and in noise.

Authors:  Robert V Shannon; Rachel J Cruz; John J Galvin
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2010-07-17       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Phase-locking of auditory-nerve discharges to sinusoidal electric stimulation of the cochlea.

Authors:  S B Dynes; B Delgutte
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Performance and preference for ACE stimulation rates obtained with nucleus RP 8 and freedom system.

Authors:  B P Weber; W K Lai; N Dillier; E L von Wallenberg; M J P Killian; J Pesch; R D Battmer; T Lenarz
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Electrical stimulation rate effects on speech perception in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Komal Arora; Pam Dawson; Richard Dowell; Andrew Vandali
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.117

6.  Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation.

Authors:  J T Rubinstein; B S Wilson; C C Finley; P J Abbas
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Acoustic temporal modulation detection and speech perception in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Ward R Drennan; Kaibao Nie; Elyse M Jameyson; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children.

Authors:  J Bench; A Kowal; J Bamford
Journal:  Br J Audiol       Date:  1979-08

9.  Speech recognition and temporal amplitude modulation processing by Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Xin Luo; Qian-Jie Fu; Chao-Gang Wei; Ke-Li Cao
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Temporal modulation transfer functions in cochlear implantees using a method that limits overall loudness cues.

Authors:  Matthew Fraser; Colette M McKay
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 3.208

View more
  3 in total

1.  Intensity Discrimination and Speech Recognition of Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Colette M McKay; Natalie Rickard; Katherine Henshall
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-05-17

2.  Stimulation Rate and Voice Pitch Perception in Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Damir Kovačić; Chris J James
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-08-02

3.  The effect of a coding strategy that removes temporally masked pulses on speech perception by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Wiebke Lamping; Tobias Goehring; Jeremy Marozeau; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2020-04-10       Impact factor: 3.208

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.