Literature DB >> 9193063

Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants.

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

Abstract

Ten postlinguistically deaf adults who used the Nucleus Cochlear Implant System and SPEAK speech coding strategy responded to vowels, consonants, words, and sentences presented sound-only at 70, 60, and 50 dB sound-pressure level. Highest group mean scores were at a raised-to-loud level of 70 dB for consonants (73%), words (44%), and sentences (87%); the highest score for vowels (70%) was at a conversational level of 60 dB. Lowest group mean scores were at a soft level of 50 dB for vowels (56%), consonants (47%), words (10%), and sentences (29%); all except subject 7 had some open-set speech recognition at this level. For the conversational level (60 dB), group mean scores for sentences and words were 72% and 29%, respectively. With this performance and sound-pressure level, it was observed that these subjects communicated successfully in a variety of listening situations. Given these subjects' speech recognition scores at 60 dB and the fact that 70 dB does not simulate the vocal effort used in everyday speaking situations, it is suggested that cochlear implant candidates and implantees be evaluated with speech tests presented at 60 dB instead of the customary 70 dB sound-pressure level to simulate benefit provided by implants in everyday life. Analysis of individuals' scores at the three levels for the four speech materials revealed different patterns of speech recognition among subjects (e.g., subjects 1 and 5). Future research on the relation between stimuli, sound processing, and subjects' responses associated with these different patterns may provide guidelines to select parameter values with which to map incoming sound onto an individual's electrical dynamic range between threshold and maximum acceptable loudness level to improve speech recognition.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9193063     DOI: 10.1121/1.418383

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


  31 in total

1.  Optimizing the perception of soft speech and speech in noise with the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant system.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Ruth M Reeder; Jill B Firszt; Charles C Finley
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 2.117

2.  Clinical evaluation of the xDP output compression strategy for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Alexis Bozorg-Grayeli; Nicolas Guevara; Jean-Pierre Bebear; Marine Ardoint; Sonia Saaï; Michel Hoen; Dan Gnansia; Philippe Romanet; Jean-Pierre Lavieille
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-10-17       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  [A multicentre comparative study of the ESPrit and the Nucleus 22].

Authors:  K Berger; H Bagus; H Michels; J Roth; B Voss; T Klenzner
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.284

4.  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

5.  Electromotile hearing: acoustic tones mask psychophysical response to high-frequency electrical stimulation of intact guinea pig cochleae.

Authors:  Colleen G Le Prell; Kohei Kawamoto; Yehoash Raphael; David F Dolan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Evaluation of TIMIT sentence list equivalency with adult cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Sarah E King; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Laura K Holden; Michael Strube
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Optimization of programming parameters in children with the advanced bionics cochlear implant.

Authors:  Jacquelyn Baudhuin; Jamie Cadieux; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Jerrica L Maxson
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.664

8.  Psychophysical assessment of stimulation sites in auditory prosthesis electrode arrays.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Rose A Burkholder-Juhasz; Teresa A Zwolan; Li Xu
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-28       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Electrically Evoked Auditory Event-Related Responses in Patients with Auditory Brainstem Implants: Morphological Characteristics, Test-Retest Reliability, Effects of Stimulation Level, and Association with Auditory Detection.

Authors:  Shuman He; Tyler C McFayden; Holly F B Teagle; Matthew Ewend; Lillian Henderson; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Bimodal Hearing or Bilateral Cochlear Implants? Ask the Patient.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.