Enhancing temporal cues to voice pitch in continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants

2004 ◽  
Vol 116 (4) ◽  
pp. 2298-2310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Green ◽  
Andrew Faulkner ◽  
Stuart Rosen
2012 ◽  
Vol 131 (2) ◽  
pp. 1325-1336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xin Luo ◽  
Monica Padilla ◽  
David M. Landsberger

1992 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 1247-1257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dianne J. Van Tasell ◽  
Donna G. Greenfield ◽  
Joelle J. Logemann ◽  
David A. Nelson

2014 ◽  
Vol 67 (suppl. 1) ◽  
pp. 32-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maja Miljkovic ◽  
Mila Veselinovic ◽  
Ivana Sokolovac ◽  
Dragan Dankuc ◽  
Zoran Komazec ◽  
...  

Introduction. The focus of this study was the analysis of objective acoustic characteristics of voice in children with cochlear implants. The objective of this study was to compare acoustic parameters of voice in children with cochlear implants and normal hearing children of the same age, and to determine differences, if there were any. Material and Methods. There were 60 children (aged from 6 to 13) included in this prospective study. They were divided into 2 groups: children with cochlear implants (30) and normal hearing children with normal speech development (30). The most stable voice sample was analyzed using a software program Dr Speech: Vocal Assessment. Objective acoustic analysis of voice included 13 acoustic parameters. Results. Standard deviation of fundamental frequency was significantly (p=0.000) higher in children with cochlear implants, as well as the values of harmonic to noise ratio (p=0.003) and signal to noise ratio (p=0.000) parameters. Values of jitter %, shimmer %, normalized noise energy, fundamental frequency tremor and amplitude tremor showed no significant differences between the two groups. However, the values of parameters that refer to voice frequency (habitual fundamental frequency, mean fundamental frequency, min fundamental frequency and max fundamental frequency) and the mean value of voice intensity (p=0.004), were significantly higher in the boys and the girls with cochlear implants than in the normal hearing children. Conclusion. Gender non-related parameters of hoarseness did not show significant differences between the children with cochlear implants and the normal hearing children; the results of cochlear implantation and voice and speech education were therefore positive. However, the children with cochlear implants of both gender showed significantly higher values of voice intensity, voice pitch and insufficient control of voice pitch variation.


2012 ◽  
Vol 132 (1) ◽  
pp. 392-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew E. Vandali ◽  
Richard J. M. van Hoesel

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (11) ◽  
pp. 3855-3864
Author(s):  
Wanting Huang ◽  
Lena L. N. Wong ◽  
Fei Chen ◽  
Haihong Liu ◽  
Wei Liang

Purpose Fundamental frequency (F0) is the primary acoustic cue for lexical tone perception in tonal languages but is processed in a limited way in cochlear implant (CI) systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate the importance of F0 contours in sentence recognition in Mandarin-speaking children with CIs and find out whether it is similar to/different from that in age-matched normal-hearing (NH) peers. Method Age-appropriate sentences, with F0 contours manipulated to be either natural or flattened, were randomly presented to preschool children with CIs and their age-matched peers with NH under three test conditions: in quiet, in white noise, and with competing sentences at 0 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Results The neutralization of F0 contours resulted in a significant reduction in sentence recognition. While this was seen only in noise conditions among NH children, it was observed throughout all test conditions among children with CIs. Moreover, the F0 contour-induced accuracy reduction ratios (i.e., the reduction in sentence recognition resulting from the neutralization of F0 contours compared to the normal F0 condition) were significantly greater in children with CIs than in NH children in all test conditions. Conclusions F0 contours play a major role in sentence recognition in both quiet and noise among pediatric implantees, and the contribution of the F0 contour is even more salient than that in age-matched NH children. These results also suggest that there may be differences between children with CIs and NH children in how F0 contours are processed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 986-992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa R. Park ◽  
Erika B. Gagnon ◽  
Erin Thompson ◽  
Kevin D. Brown

Purpose The aims of this study were to (a) determine a metric for describing full-time use (FTU), (b) establish whether age at FTU in children with cochlear implants (CIs) predicts language at 3 years of age better than age at surgery, and (c) describe the extent of FTU and length of time it took to establish FTU in this population. Method This retrospective analysis examined receptive and expressive language outcomes at 3 years of age for 40 children with CIs. Multiple linear regression analyses were run with age at surgery and age at FTU as predictor variables. FTU definitions included 8 hr of device use and 80% of average waking hours for a typically developing child. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the establishment and degree of FTU. Results Although 8 hr of daily wear is typically considered FTU in the literature, the 80% hearing hours percentage metric accounts for more variability in outcomes. For both receptive and expressive language, age at FTU was found to be a better predictor of outcomes than age at surgery. It took an average of 17 months for children in this cohort to establish FTU, and only 52.5% reached this milestone by the time they were 3 years old. Conclusions Children with normal hearing can access spoken language whenever they are awake, and the amount of time young children are awake increases with age. A metric that incorporates the percentage of time that children with CIs have access to sound as compared to their same-aged peers with normal hearing accounts for more variability in outcomes than using an arbitrary number of hours. Although early FTU is not possible without surgery occurring at a young age, device placement does not guarantee use and does not predict language outcomes as well as age at FTU.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document