Speech based optimization of cochlear implants

References

• 1996. Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant Test (CNC). House Ear Institute & Cochlear Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• 2005 .Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech in Noise Test (BKB-SIN): Etymotic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Arora K., Dawson P., Dowell R. & Vandali A. 2009. Electrical stimulation rate effects on speech perception in cochlear implants. Int J Audiol, 48, 561–567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baskent D., Eiler C.L. & Edwards B. 2007. Using genetic algorithms with subjective input from human subjects: implications for fitting hearing aids and cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 28, 370–380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bench J., Kowal A. & Bamford J. 1979. The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br J Audiol, 13, 108–112.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buechner A., Frohne-Buechner C., Boyle P., Battmer R.D. & Lenarz T. 2009. A high rate n-of-m speech processing strategy for the first generation Clarion cochlear implant. Int J Audiol, 48, 868–875.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craddock L.C. 2006. Device Programming. In: Cooper H.R. & Craddock L.C. (eds.)Cochlear Implants: Practical Guide. Philadelphia, USA: Whurr Publishers, pp. 274–298.
   Google Scholar
• Dorman M. & Loizou P. 1998. The identification of consonants and vowels by cochlear implant patients using a six-channel continuous interleaved sampling processor, and by normal-hearing subjects using simulations of processor with two to nine channels. Ear Hear, 19, 162–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epsy-Wilson C.Y. 1992. Acoustic measures for linguistic features distinguishing the semivowels /wjrl/ in American English. J Acoust Soc Am, 92, 736–757.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firszt J.D., 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
• Fourakis M.S., Hawks J.W., Holden L.K., Skinner M.W. & Holden T.A. 2004. Effect of frequency boundary assignment on vowel recognition with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. J Am Acad Audiol, 15, 281–299.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Galvin J.J. & Fu Q.J. 2009. Influence of stimulation rate and loudness growth on modulation detection and intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users. Hear Res, 250, 45–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gifford R.H., Shallop J.K. & Peterson A.M. 2008. Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: Considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol Neurootol, 13, 193–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Govaerts P.J., Vaerenberg B., Ceulear G.D., Daemers K., Beukelaer C.D. . 2010. Development of a software tool using deterministic logic for the optimization of cochlear implant processor programming. Otol, 31, 908–918.
   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, 777–793.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holden L.K., Skinner M.W., Holden T.A. & Demorest M.E. 2002. Effects of simulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. Ear Hear, 23, 463–476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes A.E., Shrivastav R.S., Bedenbaugh P. & Krause L. 2005. Speech based optimization of cochlear implant processors International Colloquium for Rehabilitative Audiology. Gainesville, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Jakobson R., Fant C.G.M. & Halle M. 1963. Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: The Distinctive Features and Their Correlates. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krause L.S., Shrivastav R., Holmes A.E. & Bendenbaugh P. 2007. Speech-based optimization of digital hearing devices. In: U.S. P.a.T. Office (ed.). USA.
   Google Scholar
• Loizou P.C., 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
• Luxford W.M. 2001. Minimum speech test battery for postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 124, 125–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller G.A. & Nicely P.E. 1955. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. J Acoust Soc Am, 27, 338–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perlvosky L.I. 2001. Neural Networks and Intellect: Using Model-Based Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson G.E. & Lehiste I. 1962. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord, 27, 62–70.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raffin M.J.M. & Thornton A.R. 1980. Confidence levels for differences between speech-discrimination scores. J Speech Hear Res, 23, 5–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Repp B.H. 1983. Trading relations among acoustic cues in speech perception: Speech-specific but not special. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research SR-76, 129–132.
   Google Scholar
• Repp B.H. 1988. Integration and segregation in speech perception. Language and Speech, 31 239–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revit L. 2005. Bamford-Kowal-Bench speech in noise test (Version 1.03). Elk Grove Village: Etymotic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Siburt H.W., Holmes A.E., Shrivastiav R.S. & Krause L. 2010. Initial Optimization of Cochlear Implants: 2 Case Studies 11th Annual International Conference on Cochlear Implants and other Implantable Technologies. Stockholm, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner M.W. 2003. Optimizing cochlear implant performance. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Supp, Sept., 4–13.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner M.W., Holden L.K. & Holden T.A. 1995. Effect of frequency boundary assignment on speech recognition with the SPEAK speech-coding strategy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 104, 307–311.
   Google Scholar
• Soli S.D. & Arabie P. 1979. Auditory versus phonetic accounts of observed confusions between consonant phonemes. J Acoust Soc Am, 66, 46–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soli S.D., Arabie P. & Carroll J.D. 1986. Discrete representation of perceptual structure underlying consonant confusions. J Acoust Soc Am, 79, 826–837.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens K.N. 2002. Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmards and distinctive features. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 1872–1891.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker G.A. 1985. A ܁rationalized܀ arcsine transform. J Speech Hearing Res, 28, 455–462.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tye-Murray N. & Tyler R.S. 1989. Auditory consonant and word recognition skills of cochlear implant users. Ear Hear, 10, 292–298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler R.S., Preece J.P. & Lowder M. 1983. The Iowa Cochlear Implant Lists. Iowa City: Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa.
   Google Scholar
• Wakefield G.H., Van den Honert C., Parkinson W. & Lineaweaver S. 2005. Genetic algorithms for adaptive psychophysical procedures: Recipient-directed design of speech-processor MAPs. Ear Hear, 26, 57S–72S.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang M.D. & Bilger R.C. 1973. Consonant confusions in noise: A study of perceptual features. J Acoust Soc Am, 54, 1248–1266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar