An initial study of voice characteristics of children using two different sound coding strategies in comparison to normal hearing children

References

• Arnoldner C., Riss D., Brunner M., Durisin M., Baumgartner W.D. et al. 2007. Speech and music perception with the new fine structure speech coding strategy: Preliminary results. Acta Otolaryngol, 127, 1298–1303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baraldi G.S., Almeida C.L., Calais L.L., Borges A.C., Gielow I. et al. 2007. Study of the fundamental frequency in elderly women with hearing loss. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol, 22, 553–564.
   Google Scholar
• Baudonck N., D'haeselee E., Dhooge I. & Van Lierde K. 2011. Objective vocal quality in children using cochlear implants: A multiparameter approach. J Voice, 25, 683–691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buder E.H., Chorna L.B., Oller D.K. & Robinson R.B. 2008. Vibratory regime classification of infant phonation. J Voice, 22, 553–564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campisi P., Low A., Papsin B., Mount R., Cohen-Kerem R. et al. 2005. Acoustic analysis of the voice in pediatric cochlear implant recipients: A longitudinal study. Laryngoscope, 155, 1046–1050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campisi P., Low A.J., Papsin B.C., Mount R.J. & Harrison R.V. 2006. Multidimensional voice program analysis in profoundly deaf children: Quantifying frequency and amplitude control. Percept Mot Skills, 103, 40–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappelari V.M. & Cielo C.A. 2008. Vocal acoustic characteristics in pre-school aged children. Rev Bras Olorrinolaringol, 74, 265–272.
   Google Scholar
• Clark G. (ed.) 2003. Cochlear Implants: Fundamentals and Applications. Victoria: Springer Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Dowell et al, 2005. Evaluating cochlear implant candidacy: Recent developments. The Hearing Journal, 58, 9–23.
   Google Scholar
• Evans M.K. & Deliyski D.D. 2007. Acoustic voice analysis of prelingually deaf adults before and after cochlear implantation. J Voice, 21, 669–682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frederigue N.B. & Bevilacqua M.C. 2003. Speech perception optimization in deaf with multichannel cochlear implant. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol, 69, 227–233.
   Google Scholar
• Fu Q.J., Chinchilla S., Nogaki G. & Galvin J.J. 2005. Voice gender identification by cochlear implant users: The role of spectral and temporal resolution. J Acoust Soc Am, 118, 1711–1718.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geers A.E. 1994. Techniques for assessing auditory speech perception and lipreading enhancement in young deaf children. Volta Review, 96, 85–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hocevar-Boltezar I., Vatovec J., Gros A. & Zargi M. 2005. The influence of cochlear implantation on some voice parameters. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 69, 1635–1640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holden L.K., Vandali A.E., Skinner M.W., Fourakis M.S. & Holden T.A. 2005. Speech recognition with the advanced combination encoder and transient emphasis spectral maxima strategies in Nucleus 24 recipients. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 48, 681–701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horga D. & Liker M. 2006. Voice and pronunciation of cochlear implant speakers. Clin Linguist Phon, 20, 211–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee G.S. 2012. Variability in voice fundamental frequency of sustained vowels in speakers with sensorineural hearing loss. J Voice, 26, 24–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loizou P.C. 1999. Introduction to cochlear implants. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag, 18, 32–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Magnusson L. 2011. Comparison of the fine structure processing (FSP) strategy and the CIS strategy used in the MED-EL cochlear implant system: Speech intelligibility and music sound quality. Int J Audiol, 50, 279–287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maryn Y. & Roy N. 2012. Sustained vowels and continuous speech in the auditory-perceptual evaluation of dysphonia severity. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol, 24, 107–112.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Massida Z., Belin P., James C., Rouger J., Fraysse B. et al. 2011. Voice discrimination in cochlear-implanted deaf subjects. Hear Res, 275, 120–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melo T.M., Bevilacqua M.C. & Costa O.A.C. 2012. Speech perception in cochlear implant users with the HiRes 120 strategy: A systematic review. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol, 78, 129–133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nascimento L.T. 1997. Uma proposta de avaliação da linguagem oral. [A proposal to evaluate oral language]. Unpublished paper, (Graduate Program in Audiology), University of São Paulo.
   Google Scholar
• Nie K. & Zeng F.G. 2004. A perception-based processing strategy for cochlear implants and speech coding. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 6, 4205–4208.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pasanisi E., Bacciu A., Vincenti V., Guida M., Berghenti M.T. et al. 2002. Comparison of speech perception benefits with SPEAK and ACE coding strategies in pediatric Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant recipients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 64, 159–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng S-C., Spencer L.J. & Tomblin J.B. 2004. Speech intelligibility of pediatric cochlear implant recipients with seven years of device experience. J Sp Lang Hear Res, 47, 1227–1236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riss D., Hamzavi J.S., Katzinger M., Baumgartner W.D., Kaider A. et al. 2011. Effects of fine structure and extended low frequencies in pediatric cochlear implant recipients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 75, 573–578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roussel N.C. & Lobdell M. 2006. The clinical utility of the soft phonation index. Clin Linguist Phon, 20, 181–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner M.W., Arndt P.L. & Staller S.J. 2002. Nucleus 24 advanced encoder conversion study: Performance versus preference. Ear Hear, 23, 2S–17S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spahr A.J. & Dorman M.F. 2004. Performance of subjects fitted with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 130, 624–628.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tobey E.A., Geers A.E., Brenner C., Altuna D. & Gabbert G. 2003. Factors associated with development of speech production skills in children implanted by age five. Ear Hear, 24, 36S–45S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ubrig M.T., Goffi-Gomez M.V., Weber R., Menezes M.H., Nemr N.K. et al. 2011. Voice analysis of postlingually deaf adults pre- and postcochlear implantation. J Voice, 25, 692–699.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandali A.E., Sucher C., 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
• Vermeire K., Punte A.K. & Van de Heyning P. 2010. Better speech recognition in noise with the fine structure processing coding strategy. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec, 72, 305–311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson B.S. & Dorman M.F. 2008. Cochlear implants: Current designs and future possibilities. J Rehabil Res Dev, 45, 695–730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wirz S.L., Subtelny J.D. & Whitehead R.L. 1981. Perceptual and spectrographic study of tense voice in normal hearing and deaf subjects. Folia Phoniatr, 33, 23–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe J. & Schafer E.C. (eds.) 2010. Programming Cochlear Implants. San Diego: Plural Publishing.
   Google Scholar