A Within-Subject Comparison of Adult Patients Using the Nucleus F0F1F2 and F0F1F2B3B4B5 Speech Processing Strategies

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron J. Parkinson ◽  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
George G. Woodworth ◽  
Mary W. Lowder ◽  
Bruce J. Gantz
Keyword(s):  
Speech Processing ◽  
The Other ◽  
Superior Performance ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Average Performance ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Consonant Recognition ◽  
Subject Comparison

This study compares the Nucleus F0F1F2 and F0F1F2B3B4B5 (also known as “Multipeak” or “Mpeak”) processing schemes in 17 patients wearing the Mini Speech Processor. All patients had at least 18 months implant experience using the F0F1F2 processing strategy. For this study, they were switched to the F0F1F2B3B4B5 processing strategy for 3 months. They then returned to using the F0F1F2 strategy for 3 months, then used the F0F1F2B3B4B5 strategy again for 3 months, and lastly used the F0F1F2 strategy for 3 months. Performance was evaluated with both schemes after each interval, using speech recognition tests and subjective ratings. Overall, differences between the results for the two processing schemes were not large. Average performance was somewhat better for the F0F1F2B3B4B5 strategy for word and sentence identification, but not for any of the other speech measures. Superior performance was observed in 8 patients with the F0F1F2B3B4B5 strategy. However, 6 of the 8 individuals were significantly better on only one of the six speech measures in the test battery. The other 2 patients performed better on two of the speech measures. Superior performance was also observed in 3 patients with the F0F1F2 strategy for consonant recognition. For the remaining patients, there was little difference in their performance with the two strategies. Information transmission analyses indicated that the F0F1F2B3B4B5 strategy transmitted consonant duration and frication cues more efficiently than F0F1F2. Experience with one strategy appeared to benefit performance with the other strategy.

Speech Recognition as a Function of the Number of Electrodes Used in the SPEAK Cochlear Implant Speech Processor

1997 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 1201-1215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim E. Fishman ◽  
Robert V. Shannon ◽  
William H. Slattery
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Spectral Information ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Average Performance ◽  
Speech Stimuli ◽  
Monosyllabic Words

Speech recognition was measured in listeners with the Nucleus-22 SPEAK speech processing strategy as a function of the number of electrodes. Speech stimuli were analyzed into 20 frequency bands and processed according to the usual SPEAK processing strategy. In the normal clinical processor each electrode is assigned to represent the output of one filter. To create reduced-electrode processors the output of several adjacent filters were directed to a single electrode, resulting in processors with 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, and 20 electrodes. The overall spectral bandwidth was preserved, but the number of active electrodes was progressively reduced. After a 2-day period of adjustment to each processor, speech recognition performance was measured on medial consonants, vowels, monosyllabic words, and sentences. Performance with a single electrode processor was poor in all listeners, and average performance increased dramatically on all test materials as the number of electrodes was increased from 1 to 4. No differences in average performance were observed on any test in the 7-, 10-, and 20-electrode conditions. On sentence and consonant tests there was no difference between average performance with the 4-electrode and 20-electrode processors. This pattern of results suggests that cochlear implant listeners are not able to make full use of the spectral information on all 20 electrodes. Further research is necessary to understand the reasons for this limitation and to understand how to increase the amount of spectral information in speech received by implanted listeners.

scholarly journals An Attempt to Improve Bilateral Cochlear Implants by Increasing the Distance between Electrodes and Providing Complementary Information to the Two Ears

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (01) ◽  
pp. 052-065 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Shelley A. Witt ◽  
Camille C. Dunn ◽  
Ann Perreau ◽  
Aaron J. Parkinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Bilateral Cochlear Implants ◽  
Channel Interaction ◽  
Consonant Recognition ◽  
Bilateral Cochlear Implant ◽  
Input Spectrum

Objectives: The purpose of this investigation was to determine if adult bilateral cochlear implant recipients could benefit from using a speech processing strategy in which the input spectrum was interleaved among electrodes across the two implants. Design: Two separate experiments were conducted. In both experiments, subjects were tested using a control speech processing strategy and a strategy in which the full input spectrum was filtered so that only the output of half of the filters was audible to one implant, while the output of the alternative filters was audible to the other implant. The filters were interleaved in a way that created alternate frequency “holes” between the two cochlear implants. Results: In experiment one, four subjects were tested on consonant recognition. Results indicated that one of the four subjects performed better with the interleaved strategy, one subject received a binaural advantage with the interleaved strategy that they did not receive with the control strategy, and two subjects showed no decrement in performance when using the interleaved strategy. In the second experiment, 11 subjects were tested on word recognition, sentences in noise, and localization (it should be noted that not all subjects participated in all tests). Results showed that for speech perception testing one subject achieved significantly better scores with the interleaved strategy on all tests, and seven subjects showed a significant improvement with the interleaved strategy on at least one test. Only one subject showed a decrement in performance on all speech perception tests with the interleaved strategy. Out of nine subjects, one subject preferred the sound quality of the interleaved strategy. No one performed better on localization with the interleaved strategy. Conclusion: Data from this study indicate that some adult bilateral cochlear implant recipients can benefit from using a speech processing strategy in which the input spectrum is interleaved among electrodes across the two implants. It is possible that the subjects in this study who showed a significant improvement with the interleaved strategy did so because of less channel interaction; however, this hypothesis was not directly tested.

Speech-Processing Strategies and Their Implementation

1987 ◽  
Vol 96 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 71-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Seligman
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Pulse Rate ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Temporal Coding ◽  
Electrode Position ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Speech Information

Since 1979, the Australian speech-processing strategy has been based on the presentation of an estimate of F2 coded by electrode position and F0 coded by pulse rate. Although providing limited information, this strategy has produced good results with significant hearing-alone performance. This paper describes a number of strategies that provide further speech information in an attempt to increase hearing-alone performance to a level where the cochlear implant is able to operate in its own right rather than as an adjunct to lipreading. The strategies are all based on the addition of F1 to the existing strategy. Both electrode and temporal coding of F1 is described, and the performance and percepts produced are discussed. Amplitudes of the two formants must be carefully controlled to avoid masking. The implications of the strategies on the design of hardware are described.

Comparison of Different Speech Processing Strategies on Patients Receiving the Same Implant

1986 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Blair Simmons ◽  
Laurel J. Dent ◽  
Dirk Van Compernolle
Keyword(s):  
Speech Processing ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
The Other ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Interim Report ◽  
Scala Tympani ◽  
Processing Strategies

Two subjects with transcutaneously connected 8-electrode scala tympani implants were given subsets of the Minimal Auditory Capabilities test during stimulation with five speech processing strategies — two single channel and three multichannel. While there were significant (p = 0.05%) scores on some items with all types of stimulation, one subject did as well with single channel analog as with multichannel stimulation. She is an enthusiastic full-time user of single channel stimulation. The other, a nonuser of the same device, preferred (and performed better with) one of multichannel stimulation. This is an interim report because neither subject has yet had the opportunity of nonlaboratory use of the multichannel schemes.

An Attempt to Distinguish between Two Reversal Processing Strategies for Learning Modeled Motor Skill

1998 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 1007-1015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tadao Ishikura ◽  
Kimihiro Inomata
Keyword(s):  
Response Time ◽  
Motor Skill ◽  
Visual Information ◽  
The Other ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Eye Fixation ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Rear Angle ◽  
The Relationship

The first purpose was to examine the effects of reversal processing strategy of visual information on recognition and acquisition of a sequential gross movement task. The second purpose was to examine the relationship between a measure of reversal processing strategy and movements during eye fixation. 24 undergraduates were assigned into one of three conditions, a Reversal-emphasized condition in which subjects were instructed to recognize the movement correctly from a reversed angle, a Recognition-emphasized condition in which subjects were instructed to recognize the movement correctly, and a Recall-emphasized condition in which subjects were instructed to reproduce the movement correctly. Subjects observed stimuli with the model facing them. Following observation, the subjects' recognition of stimuli was tested with model facing towards (Facing Angle) and facing away (Rear Angle). Recall tests were carried out after the two recognition tests. Analysis indicated that accuracy and response time on recognition tests improved under each condition, but there were no other effects. The Reversal-emphasized condition showed significantly greater modeling effect than the other conditions. Movements during eye fixation were very similar among conditions.

scholarly journals A Daily Alternating Method for Comparing Different Signal-Processing Strategies in Hearing Aids and in Cochlear Implants

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (05) ◽  
pp. 443-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Shelley A. Witt ◽  
Camille C. Dunn ◽  
Ann E. Perreau
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Daily Basis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Clear Advantage ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Listening Experience ◽  
Post Trial

Background: Although we always want to select the best signal-processing strategy for our hearing-aid and cochlear-implant patients, no efficient and valid procedure is available. Comparisons in the office are without listening experience, and short-term take-home trials are likely influenced by the order of strategies tried. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a new procedure for comparing signal-processing strategies whereby patients listen with one strategy one day and another strategy the next day. They continue this daily comparison for several weeks. We determined (1) if differences existed between strategies without prior listening experience and (2) if performance differences (or lack there of) obtained at the first listening experience are consistent with performance after two to three months of alternating between strategies on a daily basis (equal listening experience). Research Design: Eight subjects were tested pretrial with a vowel, sentence, and spondee recognition test, a localization task, and a quality rating test. They were required to listen to one of two different signal processing strategies alternating between strategies on a daily basis. After one to three months of listening, subjects returned for follow-up testing. Additionally, subjects were asked to make daily ratings and comments in a diary. Results: Pre-trial (no previous listening experience), a clear trend favoring one strategy was observed in four subjects. Four other subjects showed no clear advantage. Post-trial (after alternating daily between strategies), of the four subjects who showed a clear advantage for one signal processing strategy, only one subject showed that same advantage. One subject ended up with an advantage for the other strategy. Post-trial, of the four subjects who showed no advantage for a particular signal processing strategy, three did show an advantage for one strategy over the other. Conclusion: Patients are willing to alternate between signal processing strategies on a daily basis for up to three months in an attempt to determine their optimal strategy. Although some patients showed superior performance with initial fittings (and some did not), the results of pre-trial comparison did not always persist after having equal listening experience. We recommend this daily alternating listening technique when there is interest in determining optimal performance among different signal processing strategies when fitting hearing aids or cochlear implants.

The Mere Exposure Effect and Recognition Depend on the Way You Look! *S. W. and J. D. contributed equally to this study.

2010 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 185-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvie Willems ◽  
Jonathan Dedonder ◽  
Martial Van der Linden
Keyword(s):  
Differential Effect ◽  
Recognition Task ◽  
Mere Exposure ◽  
Perceptual Processing ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Mere Exposure Effect ◽  
Exposure Effect ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Explicit Recognition ◽  
Analytic Strategy

In line with Whittlesea and Price (2001) , we investigated whether the memory effect measured with an implicit memory paradigm (mere exposure effect) and an explicit recognition task depended on perceptual processing strategies, regardless of whether the task required intentional retrieval. We found that manipulation intended to prompt functional implicit-explicit dissociation no longer had a differential effect when we induced similar perceptual strategies in both tasks. Indeed, the results showed that prompting a nonanalytic strategy ensured performance above chance on both tasks. Conversely, inducing an analytic strategy drastically decreased both explicit and implicit performance. Furthermore, we noted that the nonanalytic strategy involved less extensive gaze scanning than the analytic strategy and that memory effects under this processing strategy were largely independent of gaze movement.

Effects of Speech Synthesis on the Proofreading Efficiency of Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities

1995 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marshall H. Raskind ◽  
Eleanor Higgins
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Speech Synthesis ◽  
Written Language ◽  
The Other ◽  
Read Aloud ◽  
Synthesis Condition ◽  
Superior Performance ◽  
Postsecondary Students ◽  
Students With Learning Disabilities ◽  
Synthesis System

This study investigated the effects of speech synthesis on the proofreading efficiency of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Subjects proofread self-generated written language samples under three conditions: (a) using a speech synthesis system that simultaneously highlighted and “spoke” words on a computer monitor, (b) having the text read aloud to them by another person, and (c) receiving no assistance. Using the speech synthesis system enabled subjects to detect a significantly higher percentage of total errors than either of the other two proofreading conditions. In addition, subjects were able to locate a significantly higher percentage of capitalization, spelling, usage and typographical errors under the speech synthesis condition. However, having the text read aloud by another person significantly outperformed the other conditions in finding “grammar-mechanical” errors. Results are discussed with regard to underlying reasons for the overall superior performance of the speech synthesis system and the implications of using speech synthesis as a compensatory writing aid for postsecondary students with learning disabilities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document