Effect of stimulation rate on speech perception in adult users of the Med-El CIS speech processing strategy Efectos de la tasa de estimulación en la percepción del lenguaje en usuarios adultos de la estrategia de procesamiento Med-El CIS

References

• Busby, P.A., Tong, Y.C. & Clark, G.M. 1993. The perception of temporal modulations by cochlear implant patients. J Acoust Soc Am, 94, 124–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson, P.W., McKay, CM., Busby, P.A., Grayden, D.B. & Clark, G.M. 2000. Electrode discrimination and speech perception in young children using cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 21, 597–607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaldson, GS. & Nelson, D.A. 2000. Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 1645–1658.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorman, M.F., Dankowski, K., McCandless, G, Parkin, J.L. & Smith, L. 1991. Vowel and consonant recognition with the aid of a multichannel cochlear implant. Q J Exp Psychol A, 43, 585–601.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dorman, M.F. & Loizou, PC. 1996. Relative spectral change and formant transitions as cues to labial and alveolar place of articulation. J Acoust Soc Am, 100, 3825–3830.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dorman, M.F. & Loizou, PC. 1997. Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants. Am J Otol, 18, S113–S114.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dorman, M.F. & Loizou, PC. 1998. The identification of consonants and vowels by cochlear implant patients using a 6-channel continuous interleaved sampling processor and by normal-hearing subjects using simulations of processors with two to nine channels. Ear Hear, 19, 162–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorman, M.F, Loizou, PC, Kemp, L.L. & Kirk, K.I. 2000. Word recognition by children listening to speech processed into a small number of channels: data from normal-hearing children and children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 21, 590–596.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dorman, M.F, Soli, S., Dankowski, K., Smith, L.M., McCandless, G & Parkin, J. 1990. Acoustic cues for consonant identification by patients who use the Ineraid cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 2074–2079.
   Google Scholar
• Friesen, L.M., Shannon, R.V & Slattery, W.H., III 1999. The effect of frequency allocation on phoneme recognition with the nucleus 22 cochlear implant. Am J Otol, 20, 729–734.
   Google Scholar
• Fu, Q.J. & Shannon, R.V. 1999a. Effect of acoustic dynamic range on phoneme recognition in quiet and noise by cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, L65–L70.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fu, Q.J. & Shannon, R.V 1999b. Phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users as a function of signal- to-noise ratio and nonlinear amplitude mapping. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, L18–L23.
   Google Scholar
• Fu, Q.J. & Shannon, R.V 2000. Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 589–597.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hescot, F, Lorenzi, C, Debruille, X. & Camus, J.F 2000. Measurement of the temporal-modulation transfer function for a single listener with cochlear hearing loss and left-hemisphere damage. Br J Audiol, 34, 341–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iverson, P. 2003. Evaluating the function of phonetic perceptual phenomena within speech recognition: an examination of the perception of /d/-/t/ by adult cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 1056–1064.
   Google Scholar
• Loizou, PC, Dorman, M. & Tu, Z. 1999. On the number of channels needed to understand speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 2097–2103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loizou, PC & Poroy, O. 2001. Minimum spectral contrast needed for vowel identification by normal hearing and cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 110, 1619–1627.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Loizou, PC, Poroy, O. & Dorman, M. 2000. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am, 108, 790–802.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pisoni, D.B. 2000. Cognitive factors and cochlear implants: some thoughts on perception, learning, and memory in speech perception. Ear Hear, 21, 70–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raffin, M.J. & Thornton, A.R. 1979. Confidence levels for differences between speech-discrimination scores: A research note. J Speech Hear Res, 23, 5–18.
   Google Scholar
• Rubinstein, J.T., Wilson, B.S., Finley, C.C. & Abbas, P.J. 1999. Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hear Res, 127, 108–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon, R.V 1992. Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 2156–2164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon, R.V, Zeng, FG, Kamath, V, Wygonski, J. & Ekelid, M. 1995. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Tasell, D.J., Greenfield, D.G, Logemann, J.J. & Nelson, D.A. 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Temporal cues for consonant recognition: training, talker general-ization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 92, 1247–1257.
   Google Scholar
• Van Tasell, D.J., Soli, S.D., Kirby, VM. & Widin, GP 1987. Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 82, 1152–1161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandali, A.E., Whitford, L.A., Plant, K.L. & Clark, G.M. 2000. Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear, 21, 608–624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, B.S., Finley, C.C, Lawson, D.T. & Zerbi, M. 1997. Temporal representations with cochlear implants. Am J Otol, 18, S30–S34.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar