Role of slow temporal modulations in speech identification for cochlear implant users

References

• Baskent D. 2006. Speech recognition in normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss as a function of the number of spectral channels. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 2908–2925.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blamey P., Artieres F., Baskent D., Bergeron F., Beynon A. et al. 2013. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: An update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurootol, 18, 36–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blamey P.J., Pyman B.C., Gordon M., Clark G.M., Brown A.M. et al. 1992. Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 101, 342–348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cazals Y., Pelizzone M., Saudan O. & Boex C. 1994. Low-pass filtering in amplitude modulation detection associated with vowel and consonant identification in subjects with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 96, 2048–2054.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dau T., Kollmeier B. & Kohlrausch A. 1997. Modeling auditory processing of amplitude modulation. II. Spectral and temporal integration. J Acoust Soc Am, 102, 2906–2919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drullman R., Festen J.M. & Plomp R. 1994. Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 2670–2680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drullman R., Festen J.M. & Plomp R. 1994. Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 1053–1064.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elhilali M., Chi T. & Shamma S.A. 2003. A spectro-temporal modulation index (STMI) for assessment of speech intelligibility. Speech Communication, 41, 331–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott T.M. & Theunissen F.E. 2009. The modulation transfer function for speech intelligibility. PLoS Comput Biol, 5, e1000302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friesen L.M., Shannon R.V., Baskent D. & Wang X. 2001. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 110, 1150–1163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu Q.J. 2002. Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Neuroreport, 13, 1635–1639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu Q.J. & Nogaki G. 2005. Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: The role of spectral resolution and smearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 6, 19–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu Q.J. & Shannon R.V. 2000. Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by Nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 589–597.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Füllgrabe C., Berthommier F. & Lorenzi C. 2006. Masking release for consonant features in temporally fluctuating background noise. Hear Res, 211, 74–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fullgrabe C., Meyer B. & Lorenzi C. 2003. Effect of cochlear damage on the detection of complex temporal envelopes. Hear Res, 178, 35–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gnansia D., Jourdes V. & Lorenzi C. 2008. Effect of masker modulation depth on speech masking release. Hear Res, 239, 60–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gnansia D., Pean V., Meyer B. & Lorenzi C. 2009. Effects of spectral smearing and temporal fine structure degradation on speech masking release. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 4023–4033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gnansia D., Pressnitzer D., Pean V., Meyer B. & Lorenzi C. 2010. Intelligibility of interrupted and interleaved speech for normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implantees. Hear Res, 265, 46–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hescot F., Lorenzi C., Debruille X. & Camus J.F. 2000. Measurement of the temporal-modulation transfer function for a single listener with cochlear hearing loss and left-hemisphere damage. Br J Audiol, 34, 341–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazard D.S., Vincent C., Venail F., Van de Heyning P., Truy E. et al. 2012. Pre-, per- and post-operative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: A new conceptual model over time. PLoS One, 7, e48739.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt H. 1971. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 49, Suppl. 2, 467+.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenzi C., Gallego S. & Patterson R.D. 1997. Discrimination of temporal asymmetry in cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am, 102, 482–485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenzi C., Gallego S. & Patterson R.D. 1998. Amplitude compression in cochlear implants artificially restricts the perception of temporal asymmetry. Br J Audiol, 32, 367–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenzi C., Husson M., Ardoint M. & Debruille X. 2006. Speech masking release in listeners with flat hearing loss: Effects of masker fluctuation rate on identification scores and phonetic feature reception. Int J Audiol, 45, 487–495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C., Peters R.W. & Glasberg B.R. 1996. Detection of decrements and increments in sinusoids at high overall levels. J Acoust Soc Am, 99, 3669–3677.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson P.B. & Jin S.H. 2004. Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: Cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 115, 2286–2294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson P.B., Jin S.H., Carney A.E. & Nelson D.A. 2003. Understanding speech in modulated interference: Cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 961–968.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. 1988. The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 2322–2327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosen S. 1992. Temporal information in speech: Acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 336, 367–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon R.V. 1992. Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 2156–2164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon R.V. 1993. Quantitative comparison of electrically and acoustically evoked auditory perception: Implications for the location of perceptual mechanisms. Prog Brain Res, 97, 261–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon R.V. & Otto S.R. 1990. Psychophysical measures from electrical stimulation of the human cochlear nucleus. Hear Res, 47, 159–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon R.V., Zeng F.G., Kamath V., Wygonski J. & Ekelid M. 1995. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steeneken H.J. & Houtgast T. 1980. A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. J Acoust Soc Am, 67, 318–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stickney G.S., Zeng F.G., Litovsky R. & Assmann P. 2004. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 1081–1091.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker G.A. 1985. A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res, 28, 455–462.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Viemeister N.F. 1979. Temporal modulation transfer functions based upon modulation thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am, 66, 1364–1380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Won J.H., Drennan W.R., Nie K., Jameyson E.M. & Rubinstein J.T. 2011. Acoustic temporal modulation detection and speech perception in cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 130, 376–388.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng F.G. 2004. Trends in cochlear implants. Trends Amplif, 8, 1–34.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar