Speech perception with F0mod, a cochlear implant pitch coding strategy

References

• Bagshaw P.C., Hiller S.M. & Jack M.A. 1993. Enhanced pitch tracking and the processing of f0 contours for computer-aided intonation teaching. In: Proc Eur Conf Speech Commun, Berlin, pp. 1003–1006.
   Google Scholar
• Boersma P. 1993. Accurate short-term analysis of the fundamental frequency and the harmonics-to-noise ratio of a sampled sound. Proc Inst phonetic Sci.
   Google Scholar
• Boersma P. & Weenink D. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot Int, 5(9/10), 341–345.
   Google Scholar
• de Cheveigne A. & Kawahara H. 2002. YIN, a fundamental frequency estimator for speech and music. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 1917.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaldson G.S., Dawson P.K. & Borden L.Z. 2011. Within-subjects comparison of the HiRes and Fidelity120 speech processing strategies: Speech perception and its relation to place-pitch sensitivity. Ear Hear, 32, 238–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francart T. & McDermott H.J. 2013. Psychophysics, fitting, and signal processing for combined hearing aid and cochlear implant stimulation. Ear Hear, 34, 685–700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francart T., van Wieringen A. & Wouters J. 2008. APEX 3: A multi-purpose test platform for auditory psychophysical experiments. J Neurosci Methods, 172, 283–93.
   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, 713–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geurts L. & Wouters J. 2004. Better place-coding of the fundamental frequency in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 115, 844–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green T., Faulkner A. & Rosen S. 2004. Enhancing temporal cues to voice pitch in continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 116(4 Pt. 1), 2298–2310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green T., Faulkner A., Rosen S. & Macherey O. 2005. Enhancement of temporal periodicity cues in cochlear implants: Effects on prosodic perception and vowel identification. J Acoust Soc Am, 118, 375–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hochmuth S., Brand T., Zokoll M.a., Castro F.Z., Wardenga N. et al. 2012. A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise. Int J Audiol, 51, 536–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasturi K. & Loizou P.C. 2007. Effect of filter spacing on melody recognition: Acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, EL29–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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, 3606–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laneau J., Wouters J. & Moonen M. 2006. Improved music perception with explicit pitch coding in cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol, 11, 38–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo X., Landsberger D.M., Padilla M. & Srinivasan A.G. 2010. Encoding pitch contours using current steering. J Acoust Soc Am, 128, 1215–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKay C.M., McDermott H. & Clark G.M. 1995. Pitch matching of amplitude-modulated current pulse trains by cochlear implantees: The effect of modulation depth. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 1777–1785.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milczynski M., Chang J.E., Wouters J. & van Wieringen A. 2012. Perception of Mandarin Chinese with cochlear implants using enhanced temporal pitch cues. Hear Res, 285, 1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milczynski M., Wouters J. & van Wieringen A. 2009. Improved fundamental frequency coding in cochlear implant signal processing. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 2260–2271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am, 66, 1333–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabiner L.R., Cheng M.J., Member S. & Rosenberg A.E. 1976. Detection algorithms. IEEE Trans Acoust Speech Signal Process, ASSP-24, 399–418.
   Google Scholar
• Shannon R.V. 1992. Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 91(4 Pt. 1), 2156–64.
   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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker G.A. 1985. A ‘rationalized’ arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res, 28, 455–62.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Immerseel L.M. & Martens J.P. 1992. Pitch and voiced/unvoiced determination with an auditory model. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 3511–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Wieringen A. & Wouters J. 2008. LIST and LINT: Sentences and numbers for quantifying speech understanding in severely impaired listeners for Flanders and the Netherlands. Int J Audiol, 47, 348–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandali A.E., Sucher C.M., Tsang D.J., McKay C.M., Chew J.W. et al. 2005. Pitch ranking ability of cochlear implant recipients: A comparison of sound-processing strategies. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 3126–3138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandali A.E. & van Hoesel R.J.M. 2011. Development of a temporal fundamental frequency coding strategy for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 129, 4023–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandali A.E. & van Hoesel R.J.M. 2012. Enhancement of temporal cues to pitch in cochlear implants: Effects on pitch ranking. J Acoust Soc Am, 132, 392–402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandali A.E., Whitford L.A., Plant K.L. & Clark G.M. 2000. Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: Using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear, 21, 608–624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C. & Brand T. 2005. Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: Influence of measurement procedure and masking parameters. Int J Audiol, 44, 144–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu C.C. & Luo X. 2013. Current steering with partial tripolar stimulation mode in cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 14, 213–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar