Lowering mean fundamental frequency to improve speech intelligibility in noise under simulated electric‐acoustic stimulation.

2010 ◽  
Vol 127 (3) ◽  
pp. 1811-1811
Author(s):  
Christopher A. Brown ◽  
Sid P. Bacon
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Frequency ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Electric Acoustic Stimulation

Influence of a single reflection on speech intelligibility in simulated electric‐acoustic stimulation.

2011 ◽  
Vol 129 (4) ◽  
pp. 2486-2486
Author(s):  
Kate Helms Tillery ◽  
Christopher A. Brown ◽  
William A. Yost ◽  
Sid P. Bacon
Keyword(s):  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Electric Acoustic Stimulation

Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects

2017 ◽  
Vol 350 ◽  
pp. 226-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Barbara Auinger ◽  
Dominik Riss ◽  
Rudolfs Liepins ◽  
Tobias Rader ◽  
Tilman Keck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Frequency ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Masking Release ◽  
Electric Acoustic Stimulation

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Electric-Acoustic Stimulation

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola V. Incerti ◽  
Teresa Y. C. Ching ◽  
Robert Cowan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Electric Acoustic Stimulation

Effects of the Configuration of Hearing Loss on Consonant Perception between Simulated Bimodal and Electric Acoustic Stimulation Hearing

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (08) ◽  
pp. 521-527
Author(s):  
Yang-Soo Yoon ◽  
George Whitaker ◽  
Yune S. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Electric Stimulation ◽  
Cutoff Frequency ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Channel Noise ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Consonant Recognition ◽  
Electric Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Band Pass ◽  
Fixed Input

Abstract Background Cochlear implant technology allows for acoustic and electric stimulations to be combined across ears (bimodal) and within the same ear (electric acoustic stimulation [EAS]). Mechanisms used to integrate speech acoustics may be different between the bimodal and EAS hearing, and the configurations of hearing loss might be an important factor for the integration. Thus, differentiating the effects of different configurations of hearing loss on bimodal or EAS benefit in speech perception (differences in performance with combined acoustic and electric stimulations from a better stimulation alone) is important. Purpose Using acoustic simulation, we determined how consonant recognition was affected by different configurations of hearing loss in bimodal and EAS hearing. Research Design A mixed design was used with one between-subject variable (simulated bimodal group vs. simulated EAS group) and one within-subject variable (acoustic stimulation alone, electric stimulation alone, and combined acoustic and electric stimulations). Study Sample Twenty adult subjects (10 for each group) with normal hearing were recruited. Data Collection and Analysis Consonant perception was unilaterally or bilaterally measured in quiet. For the acoustic stimulation, four different simulations of hearing loss were created by band-pass filtering consonants with a fixed lower cutoff frequency of 100 Hz and each of the four upper cutoff frequencies of 250, 500, 750, and 1,000 Hz. For the electric stimulation, an eight-channel noise vocoder was used to generate a typical spectral mismatch by using fixed input (200–7,000 Hz) and output (1,000–7,000 Hz) frequency ranges. The effects of simulated hearing loss on consonant recognition were compared between the two groups. Results Significant bimodal and EAS benefits occurred regardless of the configurations of hearing loss and hearing technology (bimodal vs. EAS). Place information was better transmitted in EAS hearing than in bimodal hearing. Conclusion These results suggest that configurations of hearing loss are not a significant factor for integrating consonant information between acoustic and electric stimulations. The results also suggest that mechanisms used to integrate consonant information may be similar between bimodal and EAS hearing.

scholarly journals Investigation of intracochlear dual actuator stimulation in a scaled test rig

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-122
Author(s):  
Wouter J. van Drunen ◽  
Sarra Kacha Lachheb ◽  
Anatoly Glukhovskoy ◽  
Jens Twiefel ◽  
Marc C. Wurz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Frequency ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Residual Hearing ◽  
Frequency Range ◽  
Test Rig ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Ongoing Research ◽  
Electric Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Single Implant

AbstractFor patients suffering from profound hearing loss or deafness still having respectable residual hearing in the low frequency range, the combination of a hearing aid with a cochlear implant results in the best quality of hearing perception (EAS – electric acoustic stimulation). In order to optimize EAS, ongoing research focusses on the integration of these stimuli in a single implant device. Within this study, the performance of piezoelectric actuators, particularly the dual actuator stimulation, in a scaled uncoiled test rig was investigated.

Prevalence of potential candidates for electric-acoustic stimulation implant in a hearing-impaired population

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-202
Author(s):  
Kazuya Saito ◽  
Takeshi Fujita ◽  
Yasuhiro Osaki ◽  
Hajime Koyama ◽  
Ko Shiraishi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Electric Acoustic Stimulation

scholarly journals Multicenter US Clinical Trial With an Electric-Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) System in Adults

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold C. Pillsbury ◽  
Margaret T. Dillon ◽  
Craig A. Buchman ◽  
Hinrich Staecker ◽  
Sandra M. Prentiss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Electric Acoustic Stimulation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document