Literature DB >> 8807261

Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the Multipeak (MPEAK) and Spectral Peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies. I. Vowels.

M W Skinner1, M S Fourakis, T A Holden, L K Holden, M E Demorest.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The main objective was to evaluate differences in performance associated with the two speech coding strategies. To achieve this objective, acoustic and electrical analyses of vowels identified by cochlear implant recipients were compared with their responses when they used the Multipeak (MPEAK) and the Spectral Peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies of the Nucleus Cochlear Implant System.
DESIGN: Nine subjects identified pure and r-colored English vowels with the two speech coding strategies. The two processing strategies were compared using an ABAB design. Evaluations were conducted at two weekly sessions after at least 3 wk of use with each strategy.
RESULTS: Group vowel identification scores with the MPEAK versus the SPEAK strategy were not significantly different (72.3% and 73.4%, respectively). However, hierarchical loglinear analysis of group data showed that transmitted information of r-color, duration, and second-formant features was significantly better with the SPEAK than with the MPEAK strategy. In contrast, identification of the first formant feature was significantly better with the MPEAK than with the SPEAK strategy. Individual subjects had different error patterns in response to the 14 vowels.
CONCLUSIONS: Electrical stimulation with the SPEAK strategy provides clearer spectral representation of second formant and duration information as well as second and third formant change in r-colored vowels than with the MPEAK strategy. Consequently, there was marked improvement in recognition of r-colored vowels with SPEAK compared with MPEAK. In contrast, transmitted information for first-formant features was significantly less with SPEAK than with MPEAK. This may have occurred because four instead of six to eight electrodes were assigned to first formant frequencies with SPEAK versus MPEAK.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8807261     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199606000-00002

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


  5 in total

1.  Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition.

Authors:  Li Xu; Catherine S Thompson; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Interdependence of linguistic and indexical speech perception skills in school-age children with early cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Ann E Geers; Lisa S Davidson; Rosalie M Uchanski; Johanna G Nicholas
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  A mathematical model of vowel identification by users of cochlear implants.

Authors:  Elad Sagi; Ted A Meyer; Adam R Kaiser; Su Wooi Teoh; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Long-term trajectories of the development of speech sound production in pediatric cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  J Bruce Tomblin; Shu-Chen Peng; Linda J Spencer; Nelson Lu
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2008-08-11       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Evoked cortical activity and speech recognition as a function of the number of simulated cochlear implant channels.

Authors:  L M Friesen; K L Tremblay; N Rohila; R A Wright; R V Shannon; D Başkent; J T Rubinstein
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-02-27       Impact factor: 3.708

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.