Literature DB >> 3172953

Comparative studies of speech processing strategies for cochlear implants.

B S Wilson1, C C Finley, J C Farmer, D T Lawson, B A Weber, R D Wolford, P D Kenan, M W White, M M Merzenich, R A Schindler.   

Abstract

A wide variety of speech processing strategies for multichannel auditory prostheses were compared in studies of two patients implanted with the UCSF electrode array. Each strategy was evaluated using tests of vowel and consonant confusions, with and without lipreading. Included among the strategies were the compressed analog processor of the present UCSF/Storz prosthesis and a group of interleaved pulses processors in which the amplitudes of nonsimultaneous pulses code the spectral variations of speech. For these patients, each with indications of poor nerve survival, test scores were significantly higher with the interleaved pulses processors. We believe this superior performance was a result of 1. the substantial release from channel interactions provided by nonsimultaneous stimuli and 2. a fast enough rotation among the channels to support adequate temporal and spectral resolution of perceived speech sounds.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3172953     DOI: 10.1288/00005537-198810000-00009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  11 in total

Review 1.  Temporal Considerations for Stimulating Spiral Ganglion Neurons with Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Jason Boulet; Mark White; Ian C Bruce
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-02

2.  Electrode interaction in pediatric cochlear implant subjects.

Authors:  Marc D Eisen; Kevin H Franck
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-06-10

3.  Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes.

Authors:  Charles C Finley; Timothy A Holden; Laura K Holden; Bruce R Whiting; Richard A Chole; Gail J Neely; Timothy E Hullar; Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 4.  Cochlear implants: system design, integration, and evaluation.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Stephen Rebscher; William Harrison; Xiaoan Sun; Haihong Feng
Journal:  IEEE Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2008-11-05

Review 5.  The cochlear implant: historical aspects and future prospects.

Authors:  Adrien A Eshraghi; Ronen Nazarian; Fred F Telischi; Suhrud M Rajguru; Eric Truy; Chhavi Gupta
Journal:  Anat Rec (Hoboken)       Date:  2012-10-08       Impact factor: 2.064

6.  Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future.

Authors:  Blake S Wilson; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-06-22       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Clinical evaluation of cochlear implant sound coding taking into account conjectural masking functions, MP3000™.

Authors:  Andreas Buechner; Andy Beynon; Witold Szyfter; Kazimierz Niemczyk; Ulrich Hoppe; Matthias Hey; Jan Brokx; Julie Eyles; Paul Van de Heyning; Gaetano Paludetti; Andrzej Zarowski; Nicola Quaranta; Thomas Wesarg; Joost Festen; Heidi Olze; Ingeborg Dhooge; Joachim Müller-Deile; Angel Ramos; Stephane Roman; Jean-Pierre Piron; Domenico Cuda; Sandro Burdo; Wilko Grolman; Samantha Roux Vaillard; Alicia Huarte; Bruno Frachet; Constantine Morera; Luis Garcia-Ibáñez; Daniel Abels; Martin Walger; Jochen Müller-Mazotta; Carlo Antonio Leone; Bernard Meyer; Norbert Dillier; Thomas Steffens; André Gentine; Manuela Mazzoli; Gerben Rypkema; Matthijs Killian; Guido Smoorenburg
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2011-11

10.  Perceptual Differences Between Low-Frequency Analog and Pulsatile Stimulation as Shown by Single- and Multidimensional Scaling.

Authors:  Natalia Stupak; Monica Padilla; Robert P Morse; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.