Consonant and vowel confusions in well-performing adult cochlear implant users, measured with a nonsense syllable repetition test

References

• Bhattacharya, A., and F. G. Zeng. 2007. “Companding to Improve Cochlear-Implant Speech Recognition in Speech-Shaped Noise.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 122 (2):1079–1089. doi:10.1121/1.2749710
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caldwell, M. T., N. T. Jiam, and C. J. Limb. 2017. “Assessment and Improvement of Sound Quality in Cochlear Implant Users.” Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 2 (3):119–124. doi:10.1002/lio2.71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaldson, G. S., and H. A. Kreft. 2006. “Effects of Vowel Context on The Recognition of Initial and Medial Consonants By Cochlear Implant Users.” Ear and Hearing 27 (6):658–677. doi:10.1097/01.aud.0000240543.31567.54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorman, M. F., P. C. Loizou, and D. Rainey. 1997. “Speech Intelligibility as A Function of The Number of Channels of Stimulation For Signal Processors Using Sine-Wave and Noise-Band Outputs.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102 (4):2403–2411. doi:10.1121/1.419603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Findlen, U. M., and C. M. Roup. 2011. “Dichotic Speech Recognition Using Cvc Word and Nonsense Cvc Syllable Stimuli (Report).” Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 22:13–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz, B. J., C. Dunn, J. Oleson, M. Hansen, A. Parkinson, and C. Turner. 2016. “Multicenter Clinical Trial of The Nucleus Hybrid S8 Cochlear Implant: Final Outcomes.” The Laryngoscope 126 (4):962–973. doi:10.1002/lary.25572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guevara, N., M. Hoen, E. Truy, and S. Gallego. 2016. “A Cochlear Implant Performance Prognostic Test Based on Electrical Field Interactions Evaluated By Eabr (Electrical Auditory Brainstem Responses).” Plos One 11 (5):e0155008–17. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ito, J., J. Tsuji, and J. Sakakihara. 1994. “Reliability of The Promontory Stimulation Test For The Preoperative Evaluation of Cochlear Implants: A Comparison With The Round Window Stimulation Test.” Auris, Nasus, Larynx 21 (1):13–16. doi:10.1016/s0385-8146(12)80004-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kirk, K. I., N. Tye-Murray, and R. R. Hurtig. 1992. “The Use of Static and Dynamic Vowel Cues By Multichannel Cochlear Implant Users.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91 (6):3487–3498. doi:10.1121/1.402838.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristoffersen, G. 2000. The phonology of Norwegian (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
   Google Scholar
• Kurowski, K., and S. E. Blumstein. 1984. “Perceptual Integration of The Murmur and Formant Transitions For Place of Articulation in Nasal Consonants.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 76 (2):383–390. doi:10.1121/1.391139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ling, D. 1976. Speech and the Hearing-Impaired Child: Theory and Practice. Washington DC: The Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.
   Google Scholar
• Löfqvist, A., B. Sahlen, and T. Ibertsson. 2010. “Vowel Spaces in Swedish Adolescents With Cochlear Implants.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 128 (5):3064–3069. doi:10.1121/1.3466850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myhrum, M., H. Strøm-Roum, M. G. Heldahl, A. K. Rødvik, B. Eksveen, B. Landsvik, K. Rasmussen, and O. E. Tvete. 2017. “Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in Children: Outcome of The Second Implant and Long-Term Use.” Ear and Hearing 38 (3):301–313. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumeyer, V., J. Harrington, and C. Draxler. 2010. “An Acoustic Analysis of The Vowel Space in Young and Old Cochlear-Implant Speakers.” Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 24 (9):734–741. doi:10.3109/02699206.2010.491173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Øygarden, J. 2009. Norwegian Speech Audiometry [dissertation]. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
   Google Scholar
• Pelizzone, M., G. Cosendai, and J. Tinembart. 1999. “Within-Patient Longitudinal Speech Reception Measures With Continuous Interleaved Sampling Processors For Ineraid Implanted Subjects.” Ear and Hearing 20 (3):228–237. doi:10.1097/00003446-199906000-00005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahne, T., M. Ziese, D. Rostalski, and R. Muhler. 2010. “Logatome Discrimination in Cochlear Implant Users: Subjective Tests Compared To The Mismatch Negativity.” The Scientific World JOURNAL 10:329–339. doi:10.1100/tsw.2010.28.
   Google Scholar
• Rødvik, A. K. 2008. “Perception and Confusion of Speech Sounds By Adults With A Cochlear Implant.” Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 22 (4–5):371–378. doi:10.1080/02699200801919299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rødvik, A. K., J. v K. Torkildsen, O. B. Wie, M. A. Storaker, and J. T. Silvola. 2018. “Consonant and Vowel Identification in Cochlear Implant Users Measured By Nonsense Words: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 61 (4):1023–1050. doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-H-16-0463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rødvik, A. K., O. Tvete, J. v K. Torkildsen, O. B. Wie, I. Skaug, and J. T. Silvola. 2019. “Consonant and Vowel Confusions in Well-Performing Children and Adolescents With Cochlear Implants, Measured By A Nonsense Syllable Repetition Test.” Frontiers in Psychology 10:1–17. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01813.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumann, A., M. Serman, O. Gefeller, and U. Hoppe. 2015. “Computer-Based Auditory Phoneme Discrimination Training Improves Speech Recognition in Noise in Experienced Adult Cochlear Implant Listeners.” International Journal of Audiology 54 (3):190–198. doi:10.3109/14992027.2014.969409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner, M. W., L. K. Holden, L. A. Whitford, K. L. Plant, C. Psarros, and T. A. Holden. 2002. “Speech Recognition With The Nucleus 24 Speak, Ace, and Cis Speech Coding Strategies in Newly Implanted Adults.” Ear and Hearing 23 (3):207–223. doi:10.1097/00003446-200206000-00005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tingleff, H. 2007. Norsk Fonemtest [Norwegian Phoneme Test]. Oslo: Damm.
   Google Scholar
• Titze, I. R. 1994. Principles of voice production. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, R. S., and B. C. J. Moore. 1992. “Consonant Recognition By Some of The Better Cochlear-Implant Patients.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 92 (6):3068–3077. doi:10.1121/1.404203
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Välimaa, T. T., T. K. Määttä, H. J. Löppönen, and M. J. Sorri. 2002. “Phoneme Recognition and Confusions With Multichannel Cochlear Implants: Consonants.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 45 (5):1055–1069. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2002/085).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Välimaa, T. T., M. J. Sorri, J. Laitakari, V. Sivonen, and A. Muhli. 2011. “Vowel Confusion Patterns in Adults During Initial 4 Years of Implant Use.” Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 25 (2):121–144. doi:10.3109/02699206.2010.514692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Välimaa, T. T., M. J. Sorri, and H. J. Lopponen. 2001. “The Effect of A Multichannel Cochlear Implant on Phoneme Perception.” Scandinavian Audiology 30 (1):51–53. doi:10.1080/010503901300007056.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Wieringen, A., and J. Wouters. 1999. “Natural Vowel and Consonant Recognition By Laura Cochlear Implantees.” Ear and Hearing 20 (2):89–103. doi:10.1097/00003446-199904000-00001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Wallenberg, E. L., and R. D. Battmer. 1991. “Comparative Speech Recognition Results in Eight Subjects Using Two Different Coding Strategies With The Nucleus 22 Channel Cochlear Implant.” British Journal of Audiology 25 (6):371–380. doi:10.3109/03005369109076612.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wesker, T., B. Meyer, K. Wagener, J. Anemüller, A. Mertins, and B. Kollmeier. 2005. “Oldenburg Logatome Speech Corpus (Ollo) For Speech Recognition Experiments With Humans and Machines.” in 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, pp. 1273–1276.
   Google Scholar
• World Medical Association [WMA]. 2021, December 19. “WMA Declaration of Helsinki—Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.” Accessed from https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/.
   Google Scholar
• Wouters, J., and J. van den Berghe. 2001. “Speech Recognition in Noise For Cochlear Implantees With A Two-Microphone Monaural Adaptive Noise Reduction System.” Ear and Hearing 22 (5):420–430. doi:10.1097/00003446-200110000-00006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar