The effect of fluctuating maskers on speech understanding of high-performing cochlear implant users

References

• Bacon S.P., Opie J.M. & Montoya D.Y. 1998. The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. J Speech Lang Hear Res , 41, 549–563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein J.G. & Grant K.W. 2009. Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 3358–3372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bierer J.A. 2007. Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 1642–1653.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chasin M. 2012. Music and hearing aids-an introduction. Trend Amplificat, 16, 136–139.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chatterjee M. 1999. Temporal mechanisms underlying recovery from forward masking in multielectrode-implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 105, 1853–1863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen L.T., Richardson L.M., Saunders E. & Cowan R.S. 2003. Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking. Hear Res, 179, 72–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubno J.R., Horwitz A.R. & Ahlstrom J.B. 2003. Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 2084–2094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenberg L.S., Dirks D.D. & Bell T.S. 1995. Speech recognition in amplitude-modulated noise of listeners with normal and listeners with impaired hearing. J Speech Hear Res, 38, 222–233.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fastl H. 1987. Ein Störgeräusch für die Sprachaudiometrie. Audiol Akust, 26, 2–13.
   Google Scholar
• Festen J.M. & Plomp R. 1990. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 1725–1736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu Q.J. & Shannon R.V. 1998. Effects of amplitude nonlinearity on phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 104, 2570–2577.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galvin J.J. & Fu Q.J. III 2009. Influence of stimulation rate and loudness growth on modulation detection and intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users. Hear Res, 250, 46–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George E.L., Festen J.M. & Houtgast T. 2006. Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 2295–2311.
   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, 713–726.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasberg B.R., Moore B.C. & Bacon S.P. 1987. Gap detection and masking in hearing-impaired and normal-hearing subjects. J Acoust Soc Am, 81, 1546–1556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green T., Faulkner A. & Rosen S. 2002. Spectral and temporal cues to pitch in noise-excited vocoder simulations of continuous-interleaved-sampling cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 2155–2164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregan M.J., Nelson P.B. & Oxenham A.J. 2013. Behavioral measures of cochlear compression and temporal resolution as predictors of speech masking release in hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 134, 2895–2912.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ihlefeld A., Shinn-Cunningham B.G. & Carlyon R.P. 2012. Comodulation masking release in speech identification with real and simulated cochlear-implant hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 131, 1315–1324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin S.H. & Nelson P.B. 2006. Speech perception in gated noise: the effects of temporal resolution. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 3097–3108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karg S.A., Lackner C. & Hemmert W. 2013. Temporal interaction in electrical hearing elucidates auditory nerve dynamics in humans. Hear Res, 299, 10–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilman L., Zekveld A., Hallgren M. & Ronnberg J. 2015. Native and Non-native Speech Perception by Hearing-Impaired Listeners in Noise- and Speech Maskers. Trend Hear, 19, 1–12,
   Google Scholar
• Kreft H.A., Nelson D.A. & Oxenham A.J. 2013. Modulation frequency discrimination with modulated and unmodulated interference in normal hearing and in cochlear-implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol , 14, 591–601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon B.J., Perry T.T., Wilhelm C.L. & Healy E.W. 2012. Sentence recognition in noise promoting or suppressing masking release by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 131, 3111–3119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenzi C., Sibellas J., Fullgrabe C., Gallego S., Fugain C. et al. 2004. Effects of amplitude compression on first- and second-order modulation detection thresholds in cochlear implant listeners. Int J Audiol, 43, 264–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macpherson A. & Akeroyd M.A. 2014. Variations in the slope of the psychometric functions for speech intelligibility: a systematic survey. Trend Hear, 18, 1–26
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mckay C.M. & Carlyon R.P. 1999. Dual temporal pitch percepts from acoustic and electric amplitude-modulated pulse trains. J Acoust Soc Am, 105, 347–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller G.A. & Licklider J.C.R. 1950. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 22, 167–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson D.A. & Donaldson G.S. 2002. Psychophysical recovery from pulse-train forward masking in electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 2932–2947.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson D.A., Donaldson G.S. & Kreft H. 2008. Forward-masked spatial tuning curves in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 1522–1543.
   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
• Oxenham A.J. & Kreft H.A. 2014. Speech perception in tones and noise via cochlear implants reveals influence of spectral resolution on temporal processing. Trend Hear, 18, 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Oxenham A.J. & Simonson A.M. 2009. Masking release for low- and high-pass-filtered speech in the presence of noise and single-talker interference. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 457–468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters R.W., Moore B.C. & Baer T. 1998. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. J Acoust Soc Am, 103, 577–587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierzycki R.H. & Seeber B.U. 2014. Comodulation masking release in electric hearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 15, 279–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin M.K. & Oxenham A.J. 2003. Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 446–454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rader T., Baumann U. & Fastl H. 2009. Comparison of Speech Intelligibility by Eas, Bimodal, Uni- and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Patients in a ‘Multi-Source Noise Field’ (MSNF) Proc. Intern. Conf. on Acoustics (NAG/DAGA), Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 1288–1290.
   Google Scholar
• Rader T., Fastl H. & Baumann U. 2013. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field. Ear Hear, 34, 324–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riss D., Hamzavi J.S., Blineder M., Honeder C., Ehrenreich I. et al. 2014. FS4, FS4-p, and FSP: a 4-month crossover study of 3 fine structure sound-coding strategies. Ear Hear, 35, e272–e281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubinstein J.T. 2004. How cochlear implants encode speech. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg , 12, 444–448.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Stobich B., Zierhofer C.M. & Hochmair E.S. 1999. Influence of automatic gain control parameter settings on speech understanding of cochlear implant users employing the continuous interleaved sampling strategy. Ear Hear, 20, 104–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache. Teil II: Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests. [Development and evaluation of a German sentence test. Part II: Optimization of the Oldenburg sentence test]. Z Audiol/Audiological Acoustics, 38, 44–56
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache. Teil III: Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests [Development and evaluation of a German sentence test. Part III: Evaluation of the Oldenburg sentence test]. Z Audiol/Audiological Acoustics, 38, 86–95.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H. & Carhart R. 1969. Influence of pulsed masking on the threshold for spondees. J Acoust Soc Am, 46, 998–1010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu L., Tsai Y. & Pfingst B.E. 2002. Features of stimulation affecting tonal-speech perception: implications for cochlear prostheses. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 247–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zirn S., Hempel J.M., Schuster M. & Hemmert W. 2013. Comodulation masking release induced by controlled electrical stimulation of auditory nerve fibers. Hear Res, 296, 60–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar