Electrode interactions measured by loudness summation in cochlear implant listeners

1996 ◽  
Vol 100 (4) ◽  
pp. 2631-2631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qian‐Jie Fu ◽  
Robert V. Shannon ◽  
Ian‐Gang Zeng ◽  
Monita Chatterjee
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Loudness Summation

Spectral loudness summation for electrical stimulation in cochlear implant users

2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (11) ◽  
pp. 818-827 ◽  
Author(s):  
Femke L. Theelen - van den Hoek ◽  
Monique Boymans ◽  
Wouter A. Dreschler
Keyword(s):  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Loudness Summation

Binaural loudness summation by cochlear implant users.

2008 ◽  
Vol 124 (4) ◽  
pp. 2494-2494
Author(s):  
Monika Kordus ◽  
Richard S. Tyler
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Loudness Summation

scholarly journals Loudness Functions and Binaural Loudness Summation in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-364
Author(s):  
Monika Kordus ◽  
Jan Żera
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Stimulus Presentation ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Large Individual ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Large Variability ◽  
Bilateral Cochlear Implant ◽  
Loudness Summation

AbstractLoudness functions and binaural loudness summation was investigated in acoustically stimulated bilaterally implanted cochlear implant users. The study was aimed at evaluating growth of loudness functions and binaural loudness summation in cochlear implant subjects as a function of stimulus presentation level at different frequencies. Loudness was assessed using a rating procedure on a scale of 0 to 100. Three experimental conditions were tested: monaural right, monaural left and binaural, each with bands of noise with center frequencies of 0.25, 1, and 4 kHz. Fifteen implanted and five normal-hearing subjects (control group) participated in the experiments. Results demonstrated large variability in the slopes of the loudness functions and the presence of loudness summation in bilateral cochlear implant users, with large individual differences among subjects.

Letter to the Editor Concerning Skuk et al., “Parameter-Specific Morphing Reveals Contributions of Timbre and Fundamental Frequency Cues to the Perception of Voice Gender and Age in Cochlear Implant Users”

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (12) ◽  
pp. 4325-4326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hartmut Meister ◽  
Katrin Fuersen ◽  
Barbara Streicher ◽  
Ruth Lang-Roth ◽  
Martin Walger
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Fundamental Frequency ◽  
Stimulus Type ◽  
Voice Perception ◽  
Letter To The Editor ◽  
Gender And Age ◽  
General Influence

Purpose The purpose of this letter is to compare results by Skuk et al. (2020) with Meister et al. (2016) and to point to a potential general influence of stimulus type. Conclusion Our conclusion is that presenting sentences may give cochlear implant recipients the opportunity to use timbre cues for voice perception. This might not be the case when presenting brief and sparse stimuli such as consonant–vowel–consonant or single words, which were applied in the majority of studies.

Perceptual Learning of Vocoded Speech With and Without Contralateral Hearing: Implications for Cochlear Implant Rehabilitation

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Martin Chavant ◽  
Alexis Hervais-Adelman ◽  
Olivier Macherey
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Perceptual Learning ◽  
Speech Signal ◽  
Training Phase ◽  
Monosyllabic Words ◽  
Low Pass ◽  
Contralateral Ear ◽  
Number Of Individuals ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Vocoded Speech

Purpose An increasing number of individuals with residual or even normal contralateral hearing are being considered for cochlear implantation. It remains unknown whether the presence of contralateral hearing is beneficial or detrimental to their perceptual learning of cochlear implant (CI)–processed speech. The aim of this experiment was to provide a first insight into this question using acoustic simulations of CI processing. Method Sixty normal-hearing listeners took part in an auditory perceptual learning experiment. Each subject was randomly assigned to one of three groups of 20 referred to as NORMAL, LOWPASS, and NOTHING. The experiment consisted of two test phases separated by a training phase. In the test phases, all subjects were tested on recognition of monosyllabic words passed through a six-channel “PSHC” vocoder presented to a single ear. In the training phase, which consisted of listening to a 25-min audio book, all subjects were also presented with the same vocoded speech in one ear but the signal they received in their other ear differed across groups. The NORMAL group was presented with the unprocessed speech signal, the LOWPASS group with a low-pass filtered version of the speech signal, and the NOTHING group with no sound at all. Results The improvement in speech scores following training was significantly smaller for the NORMAL than for the LOWPASS and NOTHING groups. Conclusions This study suggests that the presentation of normal speech in the contralateral ear reduces or slows down perceptual learning of vocoded speech but that an unintelligible low-pass filtered contralateral signal does not have this effect. Potential implications for the rehabilitation of CI patients with partial or full contralateral hearing are discussed.

Therapeutic Issues and Adolescent Cochlear Implant Recipients

2004 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 16-20
Author(s):  
Patricia M. Chute ◽  
Helen C. Buhler
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant

Navigating the Thicket of Billing for Cochlear Implant Services

ASHA Leader ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 28-28
Author(s):  
Lisa Satterfield ◽  
Neela Swanson
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant

Family Wins Cochlear Implant Insurance Victory

ASHA Leader ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 10 (17) ◽  
pp. 4-13
Author(s):  
Susan Boswell
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document