Optimizing the perception of soft speech and speech in noise with the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant system

References

• Advanced Bionics Corporation, 2003. New methodology for fitting cochlear implants. A white paper published in June 2003 by Advanced Bionics Corporation, Valencia, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Barlow D., Hersen M. 1984. Single Case Experimental Designs (2nd). New York: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Boothroyd A., Hnath-Chisolm T., Hanin L., Kishon-Rabin L. 1988. Voice fundamental frequency as an auditory supplement to the speech reading of sentences. Ear Hear, 9, 306–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carhart R., Jerger J. 1959. Preferred method for clinical determination of pure tone thresholds. J Speech Hear Dis, 24, 330–345.
   Google Scholar
• Chmiel R., Jerger J. 1995. Quantifying improvement with amplification. Ear Hear, 16, 166–175.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cosendai G., Pelizzone M. 2001. Effects of acoustical dynamic range on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Audiol, 40, 272–281.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Davidson L.S., Skinner M.W., Holstad B.A., Fears B.T., Richter M.K. . 2009. The effect of instantaneous input dynamic range setting on the speech perception of children with the Nucleus 24 implant. Ear Hear, 30, 340–349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaldson G.S., Chisolm T.H., Blasco G.P., Shinnick L.J., Ketter K.J. . 2009. BKB-SIN and ANL predict communication ability in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear, 30, 401–410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson P.W., Vandali A.E., Knight M.R., Heasman J.M. 2007. Clinical evaluation of expanded input dynamic range in Nucleus cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 28, 163–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edington E. 1967. Statistical inference from N = 1 experiments. J Psychol, 65, 195–199.
   Google Scholar
• Firszt J.B., Holden L.K., Reeder R.M., Skinner M.W. 2009. Speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients: Comparison of standard HiRes and HiRes 120 sound processing. Otol Neurotol, 30, 146–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firszt J.B., Holden L.K., Skinner M.W., Tobey E.A., Peterson A. . 2004. Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems. Ear Hear, 25, 375–387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holden L.K., Skinner M.W., Fourakis M.S., Holden T.A. 2007. Effect of increased IIDR in the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant system. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 778–791.
   Google Scholar
• James C.J, Skinner M.W., Martin L.F.A., Holden L.K., Galvin K.L. . 2003. An investigation of input level range for the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: Speech perception performance, program preference and loudness comfort ratings. Ear Hear, 24, 157–174.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Killion M.C., Niquette P.A., Gudmundsen G.I., Revit L.J., Banerjee S. 2004. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 2395–2405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller H.G., Killion M.C. 1990. An easy method for calculating the articulation index. Hear J, 43, 15–17.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson M., Soli S., Sullivan J.A. 1994. Development of the hearing in noise test for measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 1085–1099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearsons K.S., Bennett R.L., Fidel S. 1976. Speech levels in various environments. Bolt Beranek and Newman Report No. 321. Canoga Park, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson G.E., Lehiste I. 1962. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Dis, 7, 62–70.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner M., Holden T., Whiting B., Voie A., Brunsden B. . 2007. In vivo estimates of the position of Advanced Bionics electrode arrays in the human cochlea. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl, 197, 116, 2–24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Skinner M.W., Binzer S.M., Potts L.G., Holden L.K., Aaron R.J. 2002. Hearing rehabilitation for individuals with severe and profound hearing impairment: Hearing aids, cochlear implants, and counseling. M. Valente Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing Aid Fittings (2nd ed). New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, 311–344.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner M.W., Holden L.K., Holden T.A., Demorest M.E. 1999. Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 42, 814–828.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Skinner M.W., Holden L.K., Holden T.A. 1997. Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 101, 3766–3782.
   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 Hear, 28, 260–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spahr A.J., Dorman M.F. 2005. Effects of minimum stimulation setting for the Med El Tempo+ speech processor on speech understanding. Ear Hear, 26, 2S–6S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker G., Dillion H., Byrne D. 1984. Sound-field audiometry: Recommended stimuli and procedures. Ear Hear, 5, 13–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson B.S., Finley C.C., Lawson D.T., Wolford R.D., Eddington D.K. . 1991. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature, 352, 236–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng F-G, Grant G., Niparko J., Galvin J., Shannon R. . 2002. Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 377–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwolan T.A., O'Sullivan M.B., Fink N.E., Niparko J.K., The CDACI Investigative Team. 2008. Electric charge requirements of pediatric cochlear implant recipients enrolled in the childhood development after cochlear implantation study. Otol Neurotol, 29, 143–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar