Vowel confusion patterns in adults during initial 4 years of implant use

References

• Assmann, P.F., & Katz, W.F. (2005). Synthesis fidelity and time-varying spectral change in vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117, 886–895.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baskent, D., & Shannon, R.V. (2003). Speech recognition under conditions of frequency-place compression and expansion. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 2064–2076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baskent, D., & Shannon, R.V. (2004). Frequency-place compression and expansion in cochlear implant listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 3130–3140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baskent, D., & Shannon, R.V. (2007). Combined effects of frequency compression-expansion and shift on speech recognition. Ear and Hearing, 28, 277–289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bent, T., Buchwald, A., & Alford, W. (2007). Inter-talker differences in intelligibility for two types of degraded speech. In Research on spoken language processing (Progress report no. 28) (pp. 315–334). Bloomington: Speech Research Laboratory, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University.
   Google Scholar
• Bent, T., Buchwald, A., & Pisoni, D.B. (2009). Perceptual adaptation and intelligibility of multiple talkers for two types of degraded speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126, 2660–2669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• British Society of Audiology (1988). British Society of Audiology recommendation. Descriptors for pure tone audiograms, technical note. British Journal of Audiology, 22, 123.
   Google Scholar
• Chang. Y.-P., & Fu, Q.-J. (2006). Effects of talker variability on vowel recognition in cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 1331–1341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cochlear Ltd. (1999). Nucleus® Technical reference manual Z43470 Issue I. Lane Cove, Australia: Cochlear Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Dorman, M.F., & Ketten, D. (2003). Adaptation by a cochlear-implant patient to upward shifts in the frequency representation of speech. Ear and Hearing, 24, 457–460.
   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. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2993–2996.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorman, M.F., Loizou, P.C., Spahr, A.J., & Maloff, E. (2002). Factors that allow a high level of speech understanding by patients fit with cochlear implants. American Journal of Audiology, 11, 119–123.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Faulkner, A, Rosen S., & Norman C. (2006). The right information may matter more than frequency-place alignment: Simulations of frequency-aligned and upward shifting cochlear implant processors for a shallow electrode array insertion. Ear and Hearing, 27, 139–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friesen, L.M., Shannon, R.V., Baskent, D., & Wang, X. (2001). Speech recognition in noise as the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 1150–1163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu, Q.-J., & Galvin, J.J., III (2007). Perceptual learning and auditory training in cochlear implant recipients. Trends in Amplification, 11, 193–205. Retrieved from http://tia.sagepub.com
   Google Scholar
• Fu, Q.-J., & Shannon, R.V. (1999a). Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 1889–1900.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu, Q.-J., & Shannon, R.V. (1999b). Effects of electrode configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. Ear and Hearing, 20, 332–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu, Q-J., Nogaki, G., & Galvin, J.J., III (2005). Auditory training with spectrally shifted speech: Implications for cochlear implant patient auditory rehabilitation. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 6, 180–189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, T., Katiri, S., Faulkner, A., & Rosen, S. (2007). Talker intelligibility differences in cochlear implant listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America Express Letters, 121, EL223–EL227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwood, D.D. (1990). A cochlear frequency-position function for several species—29 years later. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 2592–2605.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harnsberger, J.D., Svirsky, M.A., Kaiser, A.R., Pisoni, D.B., Wright, R., & Meyer, T.A. (2001). Perceptual “vowel spaces” of cochlear implant users: Implications for the study of auditory adaptation to spectral shift. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 2135–2145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helms, J., Müller, J., Schön, F., Moser, L., Arnold, W., Janssen, T., Hochmair Desoyer, I. (1997). Evaluation of performance with the Combi 40 cochlear implant in adults: A multicentric clinical study. Journal of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and its Related Specialties, 59, 23–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins, K.M, Chen, J.M., Nedzelski, D.B., Shipp, D.B., & McIlmoyl, L.D. (2002). A matched-pair comparison of two cochlear implant systems. Journal of Otolaryngology, 31, 97–105.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L A., Clark, M J., & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3099–3111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iivonen, A., & Laukkanen, A.-M. (1993). Explanations for the qualitative variation of Finnish vowels. In A. Iivonen, & M. Lehtihalmes ( Eds.), Studies in Logopedics and Phonetics 4, (pp. 29–54). Publications of the Department of Phonetics, University of Helsinki, Series B: Phonetics, Logopedics and Speech Communication 5.
   Google Scholar
• ISO8253–3. (1996). Acoustics—Audiometric test methods—Part 3: Speech audiometry. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• Iverson, P., Smith, C.A., & Evans, B.G. (2006). Vowel recognition via cochlear implants and noise vocoders: Effects of formant movement and duration. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 3998–4006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, K., Flemming, E., & Wright, R. (1993). The hyperspace effect: Phonetic targets are hyperarticulated. Language, 69, 505–528.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, A.R., Kirk, K.I., Lachs, L., & Pisoni, D.B. (2003). Talker and lexical effects on audiovisual word recognition by adults with cochlear implant. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 390–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ketten, D.R., Skinner, M.W., Wang, G., Vannier, M.V., Gates, G.A., & Neely, J.G. (1998). In vivo measures of cochlear length and insertion depth of nucleus cochlear implant electrode arrays. Annals of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Supplement, 175, 1–16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kirk, K.I., Hay-McCutcheon, M., Sehgal, S.T., & Miyamoto, R.T. (2000). Speech perception in children with cochlear implants: Effects of lexical difficulty, talker variability, and word length. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, & Laryngology, Supplement, 185, 79–81.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liu, S., Del Rio, E., Bradlow, A.R., & Zeng, F.-G. (2004). Clear speech perception in acoustic and electric hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 2374–2383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loizou, P.C., Dorman, M.F., & Powell, V. (1998). The recognition of vowels produced by men, women, boys and girls by cochlear implant patients using a six-channel CIS processor. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103, 1141–1149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loizou, P.C., Stickney, G., Mishra, L., & Assmann, P. (2003). Comparison of speech processing strategies used in the Clarion implant processor. Ear and Hearing, 24, 12–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McDermott, H.J., McKay, C.M., & Vandali, A.E. (1992). A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 3367–3371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munson, B., Donaldson, G.S., Allen, S.L., Collison, E.A., & Nelson, D.A. (2003). Patterns of phoneme perception errors by listeners with cochlear implants as a function of overall speech perception ability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 925–935.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nygaard, L.C., Sommers, M.S., & Pisoni, D.B. (1994). Speech perception as atalker-contingent process. Psychological Science, 5, 42–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkinson, A.J., Tyler, R.S., Woodworth, G.G., Lowder, M.W., & Gantz, B.J. (1996). A within-subject comparison of adult patients using the Nucleus F0F1F2 and F0F1F2B3B4B5 speech processing strategies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 261–277.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peterson, G.E., & Barney, H.L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 175–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rødvik, A.K. (2008). Perception and confusion of speech sounds by adults with cochlear implant. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 22, 371–378. doi: 10.1080/02699200801919299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosen, S., Faulkner, A., & Wilkinson, L. (1999). Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: Implications for cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 3629–3636.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruffin, C.V., Tyler, R.S., Witt, S.A., Dunn, C.C., Gantz, B.J., & Rubinstein, J.T. (2007). Long-term performance of Clarion 1.0 cochlear implant users. Laryngoscope, 117, 1183–1190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagi, E., Fitzgerald, M.B., & Svirsky, M.A. (2007). What matched comparisons can and cannot tell us: The case of cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 28, 571–579.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner, M.W, Fourakis, M.S., Holden, T.A., Holden, L.K., & Demorest, M.E. (1996). Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the Multipeak (MPEAK) and Spectral Peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies I. Vowels. Ear and Hearing, 17, 182–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner, M.W., Ketten, D.R., Holden, L.K., Harding, G.W., Smith, P.G., Gates, G.A., Blocker, B. (2002). CT-derived estimation of cochlear morphology and electrode array position in relation to word recognition in Nucleus-22 recipients. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 3, 332–350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spahr, A.J., & Dorman, M.F. (2004). Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices. Archives of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 130, 624–628.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spahr, A.J., Dorman, M.F., & Loiselle, L.H. (2007). Performance of patients using different cochlear implant systems: Effects of input dynamic range. Ear and Hearing, 28, 260–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stacey, P. (2007). Studies of auditory training to improve speech perception by adult cochlear-implant users. Academic dissertation. University of York York, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Suomi, K., Toivanen, J., & Ylitalo, R. (2008). Finnish sound structure: Phonetics, phonology, phonotactics and prosody. Studia Humaniora Ouluensia 9, University of Oulu.
   Google Scholar
• Svirsky, M.A., Silveira, A., Neuburger, H., Teoh, S.-W., & Suárez, H. (2004). Long-term auditory adaptation to a modified peripheral frequency map. Acta Otolaryngologica, 124, 381–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler, R.S., Parkinson A.J., Woodworth, G.G., Lowder, M.W., & Gantz, B.J. (1997). Performance over time of adult patients using the Ineraid or Nucleus cochlear implant. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 508–522.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Välimaa, T., Määttä, T., Löppönen, H., & Sorri, M. (2002a). Phoneme recognition and confusions with multichannel cochlear implants: Vowels. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 45, 1039–1054.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Välimaa, T., Määttä, T., Löppönen, H., & Sorri, M. (2002b). Phoneme recognition and confusions with multichannel cochlear implants: Consonants. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 45, 1055–1069.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Välimaa, T., Sorri, M., & Löppönen, H. (2005). Speech perception and auditory performance in Finnish adult cochlear implant users. Cochlear Implants International, 6, 49–66.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Dijk, J.E., Olphen, A.F., Langereis, M.C., Mens, L.H.M., Brokx, J.P.L., & Smoorenburg, G.F. (1999). Predictors of cochlear implant performance. Audiology, 38, 109–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Wieringen, A., & Wouters, J. (1999). Natural vowel and consonant recognition by Laura cochlear implantees. Ear and Hearing, 20, 89–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltzman, S.B, Fisher, S.G., Niparko, J.K., & Cohen, N.L. (1995). Predictors of postoperative performance with cochlear implants. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology Supplement, 165, 15–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wiik, K. (1965). Finnish and English vowels. A comparison with special reference to the learning problems met by native speakers of Finnish learning English. Academic Dissertation. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, Series B, 94. University of Turku Turku, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, B. (1993). Signal processing. In R.S. Tyler (Ed.), Cochlear implants: Audiological foundations (pp. 35–85). San Diego, CA: Singular.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, B.S., Finley, C.C., Lawson, D.T., Wolford, R.D., Eddington, D.K., & Rabinowitz, W.M. (1991). Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature, 352, 236–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziese, M., Stützel, A., von Specht, H., Begall, K., Freigang, B., Sroka, S., & Nopp, P. (2000). Speech understanding with the CIS and the n-of-m strategy in the Med-El Combi40+ system. Journal of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and its Related Specialties, 62, 321–329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar