Cochlear implant channels with high thresholds degrade medial vowel perception.

2011 ◽  
Vol 129 (4) ◽  
pp. 2656-2656
Author(s):  
Julie Arenberg Bierer ◽  
Steven M. Bierer ◽  
Erin S. Maloff ◽  
Ann Lin
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Vowel Perception

Synthetic Two-Formant Vowel Perception by Some of the Better Cochlear-Implant Patients

1989 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 301-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Nancy Tye-murray ◽  
Brian C.J. Moore ◽  
Brian F. Me Cabe
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Vowel Perception

Vowel Perception

1986 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen J. Doyle ◽  
Jeffrey L. Danhauer ◽  
Bradly J. Edgerton
Keyword(s):  
Los Angeles ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Correct Identification ◽  
Vowel Identification ◽  
Vowel Perception ◽  
Percent Correct ◽  
Frequency Information ◽  
Vowel Recognition ◽  
Second Formant

We investigated vowel perception by 15 subjects using the single-electrode cochlear implant used at the House Ear Institute in Los Angeles. Subjects were postlingually deaf adults having histories of unsuccessful hearing aid use and a minimum of 6 to 12 months experience with the implant. Eleven American English vowels spoken by a male talker were tape recorded, digitized, analyzed, and controlled for the experiments. The stimuli were audiorecordings of both natural and loudness-matched vowels. Subjects rated the dissimilarity of both the naturally spoken and the loudness-matched vowels, and performed identification of the latter. Two normal-hearing subjects served as controls for the dissimilarity tasks. Multidimensional scaling, hierarchical clustering, and percent correct identification analyses were used to help determine the perceptual features used by the subjects in their judgments. Generally, the normal-hearing subjects took advantage of second formant (F2) frequency information. The cochlear-implant users relied primarily upon fundamental (F0) and first formant (F1) frequency information and demonstrated difficulty in vowel identification. No major differences were noted for the natural versus loudness-matched vowels. F2 information, requisite for accurate vowel recognition, did not correspond to any of the perceptual dimensions discerned in the results obtained from implant subjects.

The Contribution of a Frequency-Compression Hearing Aid to Contralateral Cochlear Implant Performance

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (02) ◽  
pp. 105-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann E. Perreau ◽  
Ruth A. Bentler ◽  
Richard S. Tyler
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Vowel Perception ◽  
Frequency Compression ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact

Background: Frequency-lowering signal processing in hearing aids has re-emerged as an option to improve audibility of the high frequencies by expanding the input bandwidth. Few studies have investigated the usefulness of the scheme as an option for bimodal users (i.e., combined use of a cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid). In this study, that question was posed. Purpose: The purposes of this study were (1) to determine if frequency compression was a better bimodal option than conventional amplification and (2) to determine the impact of a frequency-compression hearing aid on speech recognition abilities. Research Design: There were two separate experiments in this study. The first experiment investigated the contribution of a frequency-compression hearing aid to contralateral cochlear implant (CI) performance for localization and speech perception in noise. The second experiment assessed monaural consonant and vowel perception in quiet using the frequency-compression and conventional hearing aid without the use of a contralateral CI or hearing aid. Study Sample: Ten subjects fitted with a cochlear implant and hearing aid participated in the first experiment. Seventeen adult subjects with a cochlear implant and hearing aid or two hearing aids participated in the second experiment. To be included, subjects had to have a history of postlingual deafness, a moderate or moderate-to-severe hearing loss, and have not worn this type of frequency-lowering hearing aid previously. Data Collection and Analysis: In the first experiment, performance using the frequency-compression and conventional hearing aids was assessed on tests of sound localization, speech perception in a background of noise, and two self-report questionnaires. In the second experiment, consonant and vowel perception in quiet was assessed monaurally for the two conditions. In both experiments, subjects alternated daily between a frequency-compression and conventional hearing aid for 2 mo. The parameters of frequency compression were set individually for each subject, and audibility was measured for the frequency compression and conventional hearing aid programs by comparing estimations of the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) using a modified algorithm (Bentler et al, 2011). In both experiments, the outcome measures were administered following the hearing aid fitting to assess performance at baseline and after 2 mo of use. Results: For this group of subjects, the results revealed no significant difference between the frequency-compression and conventional hearing aid on tests of localization and consonant recognition. Spondee-in-noise and vowel perception scores were significantly higher with the conventional hearing aid compared to the frequency-compression hearing aid after 2 mo of use. Conclusions: These results suggest that, for the subjects in this study, frequency compression is not a better bimodal option than conventional amplification. In addition, speech perception may be negatively influenced by frequency compression because formant frequencies are too severely compressed and can no longer be distinguished.

Natural Vowel Perception by Patients with the Ineraid Cochlear Implant

1992 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 228-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
John P. Preece ◽  
Charissa R. Lansing ◽  
Bruce J. Gantz
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Vowel Perception

Audio-Visual Vowel Perception of Cochlear Implant Users

2013 ◽  
Vol 149 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. P215-P216
Author(s):  
Erika Ogata ◽  
Tatsuya Yamasoba ◽  
Yusuke Akamatsu
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Vowel Perception
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document