Effects of various electrode configurations on music perception, intonation and speaker gender identification

References

• Arnoldner C., Riss D., Brunner M., Durisin M., Baumgartner W.D., Hamzavi J.S. 2007. Speech and music perception with the new fine structure speech coding strategy: preliminary results. Acta Otolaryngol, 8: 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Bartel L.R., Greenberg S., Friesen L.M., Ostroff J., Bodmer D., Shipp D., et al. 2011. Qualitative case studies of five cochlear implant recipients’ experience with music. Cochlear Implants Int, 12(1): 27–33.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Başkent D., Shannon R.V. 2005. Interactions between cochlear implant electrode insertion depth and frequency-place mapping. J Acoust Soc Am, 117(3 Pt 1): 1405–1416.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boersma P., Weenink D. 2001. PRAAT, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot Int, 5(9/10): 341–345.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd P.J. 2011. Potential benefits from deeply inserted cochlear implant electrodes. Ear Hear, 32(4): 411–427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorman M.F., Loizou P.C., Rainey D. 1997. Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am, 102(5): 2993–2996.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(6): 729–734.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fu Q.J., Shannon R.V. 1999a. Effects of electrode location and spacing on phoneme recognition with the nucleus-22 cochlear implant. Ear Hear, 20(4): 321–331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu Q.J., Shannon R.V. 1999b. Effects of configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the nucleus 22 cochlear implant. Ear Hear, 20(4): 332–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu Q.J., Shannon R.V., Galvin J.J., III. 2002. Perceptual learning following changes in the frequency-to-electrode assignment with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am, 112(4): 1664–1674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu Q.J., Chinchilla S., Nogaki G., Galvin J.J., III. 2005. Voice gender identification by cochlear implant users: the role of spectral and temporal resolution. J Acoust Soc Am, 118(3): 1711–1718.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gani M., Valentini G., Sigrist A., Kos M.I., Boex C. 2007. Implications of deep electrode insertion on cochlear implant fitting. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 8(1): 69–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geurts L., Wouters J. 2001. Coding of the fundamental frequency in continuous interleaved sampling processors for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 109(2): 713–726.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gfeller K. 2009. Music and cochlear implants: not in perfect harmony. The ASHA Leader, June 16.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzalez J., Oliver J.C. 2005. Gender and speaker identification as a function of the number of channels in spectrally reduced speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 118(1): 461–470.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goupell M.J., Laback B., Majdak P., Baumgartner W.D. 2008. Effects of upper-frequency boundary and spectral warping on speech intelligibility in electrical stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am, 123(4): 2295–2309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwood D.D. 1990. A cochlear frequency-position function for several species – 29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am, 87: 2592–2605.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hochmair I., Arnold W., Nopp P., Jolly C., Müller J., Roland P. 2003. Deep electrode insertion in cochear implants: apical morphology, electrodes and speech perception results. Acta Otolaryngol, 123: 612–617.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klatt D.H., Klatt L.C. 1990. Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 87(2): 820–857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krenmayr A., Visser D., Schatzer R., Zierhofer C. 2011. The effects of fine structure stimulation on pitch perception with cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int, 12( Suppl 1): S70–S72.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Laneau J., Wouters J., Moonen M. 2004. Relative contributions of temporal and place pitch cues to fundamental frequency discrimination in cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am, 116(6): 3606–3619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehiste I. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Li T., Fu Q.J. 2007. Perceptual adaptation to spectrally shifted vowels: training with nonlexical labels. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 8(1): 32–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meister H., Landwehr M., Pyschny V., Walger M., von Wedel H. 2009. The perception of prosody and speaker gender in normal hearing listeners and cochlear implant recipients. Int J Audiol, 48(1): 38–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noteboom S. 1997. The prosody of speech: melody and rhythm. In: Hardcastle W.J., Laver J. (eds.) The handbook of phonetic sciences. Oxford: Blackwell. p. 640–673.
   Google Scholar
• Oxenham A.J., Bernstein J.G., Penagos H. 2004. Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 101(5): 1421–1425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riss D., Hamzavi J.S., Selberherr A., Kaider A., Blineder M., Starlinger V., et al. 2011. Envelope versus fine structure speech coding strategy: a crossover study. Otol Neurotol, 32(7): 1094–1101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sydlowski S.A., Oakley S.R., Borton S.A., Barrs D.M., Cevette M.J. 2010. Negative effect of deep cochlear implant electrode insertion on speech perception. Cochlear Implants Int, 11(4): 233–240.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang T., Dorman M.F., Spahr A.J. 2010. Information from the voice fundamental frequency (F0) region accounts for the majority of the benefit when acoustic stimulation is added to electric stimulation. Ear Hear, 31(1): 63–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou N., Xu L. 2008. Lexical tone recognition with spectrally mismatched envelopes. Hear Res, 246: 36–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar