Comparison of dual-time-constant and fast-acting automatic gain control (AGC) systems in cochlear implants

References

• ANSI. 1997. ANSI S3.5-1997, Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. New York: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Blamey P.J. Adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO): A digital amplification strategy for hearing aids and cochlear implants. Trends Amplif 2005; 9: 77–98
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Clark G.M., Blamey P.J., Brown A.M., Gusby P.A., Dowell R.C., et al. The University of Melbourne-Nucleus Multi-electrode Cochlear Implant. Karger, Basel 1987
   Google Scholar
• Conway M.J., Boyle P.J. Design of the UCH/RNID cochlear implant system. J Laryngol Otol 1989; 18((Suppl.))4–10
   Google Scholar
• Crain T.R., van Tasell D.J. Effect of peak clipping on speech recognition threshold. Ear Hear 1994; 15: 443–53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson P.W., Vandali A.E., Knight M.R., Heasman J.M. Clinical evaluation of expanded input dynamic range in Nucleus cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2007; 28: 163–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaldson G.S., Allen S.L. Effects of presentation level on phoneme and sentence recognition in quiet by cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear 2003; 24: 392–405
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler E.P. A method for the early detection of otosclerosis. Arch Otolaryngol 1936; 24: 731–41
   Google Scholar
• Frijns J.H., Klop W.M., Bonnet R.M., Briaire J.J. Optimizing the number of electrodes with high-rate stimulation of the Clarion CII cochlear implant. Acta Otolaryngol 2003; 123: 138–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Naylor G., Elberling C. Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol. 42 Suppl. 2003; 1: S77–85
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Naylor G., Elberling C. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings. 1. Patterns of benefit. Int J Audiol 2006a; 45: 130–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Naylor G., Elberling C. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings. 2. Patterns of candidature. Int J Audiol 2006b; 45: 153–71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hochmair-Desoyer I., Schulz E., Moser L., Schmidt M. The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. Am J Otol 1997; 18: S83
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hood J.D. Fundamentals of identification of sensorineural hearing loss. Sound 1972; 6: 21–6
   Google Scholar
• House W.F. Cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1976; 85: 1–93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James C.J., Blamey P.J., Martin L., Swanson B., Just Y., et al. Adaptive dynamic range optimization for cochlear implants: A preliminary study. Ear Hear, S 2002; 23: 49S–58
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James C.J., Skinner M.W., Martin L.F., Holden L.K., Galvin K.L., et al. An investigation of input level range for the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: Speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings. Ear Hear 2003; 24: 157–74
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Killion M.C. Hearing aids: Past, present and future: Moving toward normal conversations in noise. Br J Audiol 1997; 31: 141–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch D.B., Osberger M.J., Segel P., Kessler D. HiResolution and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution bionic ear: Using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability. Audiol Neurootol 2004; 9: 214–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt H. Speech discrimination ability in the hearing impaired: spectrum considerations. The Vanderbilt Hearing-Aid Report, G.A. Studebaker, F.H. Bess. Monographs in Contemporary Audiology, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania 1982; 32–43
   Google Scholar
• Levitt H., Cudahy E., Hwang W.H., Kennedy E., Link C. Towards a general measure of distortion. J Rehab Res Dev 1987; 24: 283–92
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MacLeod A., Summerfield Q. A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise: Rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. Br J Audiol 1990; 24: 29–43
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. Coding of sounds in the auditory system and its relevance to signal processing and coding in cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2003; 24: 243–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. Cochlear Hearing Loss: Physiological, Psychological and Technical Issues, 2nd ed. Wiley, Chichester 2007
   Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. The choice of compression speed in hearing aids: Theoretical and practical considerations, and the role of individual differences. Trends Amplif 2008; 12: 102–12
   Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R. A comparison of four methods of implementing automatic gain control (AGC) in hearing aids. Br J Audiol 1988; 22: 93–104
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R. Simulation of the effects of loudness recruitment and threshold elevation on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in a background of speech. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 94: 2050–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R., Stone M.A. Optimization of a slow-acting automatic gain control system for use in hearing aids. Br J Audiol 1991; 25: 171–82
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore, B.C.J., Stone, M.A., Füllgrabe, C., Glasberg, B.R. & Puria, S. 2008. Spectro-temporal characteristics of speech at high frequencies, and the potential for restoration of audibility to people with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear, 29: 907–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Tan C.T. Perceived naturalness of spectrally distorted speech and music. J Acoust Soc Am 2003; 114: 408–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Wojtczak M., Vickers D.A. Effect of loudness recruitment on the perception of amplitude modulation. J Acoust Soc Am 1996; 100: 481–9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearsons K.S., Bennett R.L., Fidell S. Speech Levels in Various Environments. Report No. 3281. Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1976
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R. The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 83: 2322–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R., Mimpen A.M. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiol 1979; 18: 43–53
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robles L., Ruggero M.A. Mechanics of the mammalian cochlea. Physiol Rev 2001; 81: 1305–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, M., Hochmair-Desoyer, I., Schulz, E. & Moser, L. 1997. Der HSM-Satztest. Fortschritte der Akustik-DAGA ‘97, Oldenburg.
   Google Scholar
• Seligman P.M., Patrick J.F., Tong Y.C., Clark G.M., Dowell R.C., et al. A signal processor for a multiple-electrode hearing prosthesis. Acta Otolaryngol 1984; 411(suppl)135–9
   Google Scholar
• Shannon R.V. Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. 1. Basic psychophysics. Hear Res 1983; 11: 157–89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons F.B. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. Arch Otolaryngol 1966; 84: 2–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner M.W., Holden L.K., Holden T.A., Demorest M.E. Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant. J Sp Lang Hear Res 1999; 42: 814–28
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Souza P.E. Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and sound quality. Trends Amplif 2002; 6: 131–65
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spahr A.J., Dorman M.F., Loiselle L.H. Performance of patients using different cochlear implant systems: Effects of input dynamic range. Ear Hear 2007; 28: 260–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinberg J.C., Gardner M.B. The dependency of hearing impairment on sound intensity. J Acoust Soc Am 1937; 9: 11–23
   Google Scholar
• Stöbich B., Zierhofer C.M., Hochmair E.S. Influence of automatic gain control parameter settings on speech understanding of cochlear implant users employing the continuous interleaved sampling strategy. Ear Hear 1999; 20: 104–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J. Effect of the speed of a single-channel dynamic range compressor on intelligibility in a competing speech task. J Acoust Soc Am 2003; 114: 1023–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J. Side effects of fast-acting dynamic range compression that affect intelligibility in a competing speech task. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116: 2311–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J. Quantifying the effects of fast-acting compression on the envelope of speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121: 1654–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J. Effects of spectro-temporal modulation changes produced by multichannel compression on intelligibility in a competing-speech task. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 123: 1063–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J., Alcántara J.I., Glasberg B.R. Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 106: 3603–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker G.A., Sherbecoe R.L. Intensity-importance functions for band-limited monosyllabic words. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111: 1422–36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker G.A., Sherbecoe R.L., McDaniel D.M., Gwaltney C.A. Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105: 2431–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Buuren R.A., Festen J., Houtgast T. Compression and expansion of the temporal envelope: Evaluation of speech intelligibility and sound quality. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105: 2903–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verschuure J., Maas A.J.J., Stikvoort E., de Jong R.M., Goedegebure A., et al. Compression and its effect on the speech signal. Ear Hear 1996; 17: 162–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villchur E. Simulation of the effect of recruitment on loudness relationships in speech. J Acoust Soc Am 1974; 56: 1601–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng F.-G. Compression and cochlear implants. Compression: From Cochlea to Cochlear Implants, S.P. Bacon, A.N. Popper, R.R. Fay. Springer, New York 2004; 184–220
   Google Scholar