Speech Perception in Tones and Noise via Cochlear Implants Reveals Influence of Spectral Resolution on Temporal Processing
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] Brian C J Moore,et al. Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[2] Jong Ho Won,et al. Acoustic temporal modulation detection and speech perception in cochlear implant listeners. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[3] B. Moore. Cochlear hearing loss : physiological, psychological and technical issues , 2014 .
[4] R. Plomp,et al. Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[5] Q. Fu. Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users , 2002, Neuroreport.
[6] Fan-Gang Zeng,et al. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[7] Torsten Dau,et al. Predicting speech intelligibility based on the signal-to-noise envelope power ratio after modulation-frequency selective processing. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[8] Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al. Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[9] Tammo Houtgast,et al. The combined effects of reverberation and nonstationary noise on sentence intelligibility. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[10] Philipos C. Loizou,et al. Simulating the effect of spread of excitation in cochlear implants , 2008, Hearing Research.
[11] M. Chatterjee,et al. Detection and rate discrimination of amplitude modulation in electrical hearing. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[12] D D Dirks,et al. Speech recognition in amplitude-modulated noise of listeners with normal and listeners with impaired hearing. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.
[13] F. Zeng. Trends in Cochlear Implants , 2004, Trends in amplification.
[14] Richard L Freyman,et al. Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: Effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[15] Qian-Jie Fu,et al. Channel interaction limits melodic pitch perception in simulated cochlear implants. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[16] Andrew J Oxenham,et al. Masking release for low- and high-pass-filtered speech in the presence of noise and single-talker interference. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[17] B C Moore,et al. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[18] Qian-Jie Fu,et al. Noise Susceptibility of Cochlear Implant Users: The Role of Spectral Resolution and Smearing , 2005, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.
[19] Kohlrausch,et al. The influence of carrier level and frequency on modulation and beat-detection thresholds for sinusoidal carriers , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[20] S. Bacon,et al. The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.
[21] G. A. Miller,et al. The Intelligibility of Interrupted Speech , 1948 .
[22] Andrew J Oxenham,et al. Behavioral measures of cochlear compression and temporal resolution as predictors of speech masking release in hearing-impaired listeners. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[23] B. Moore,et al. On the near non-existence of "pure" energetic masking release for speech. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[24] Torsten Dau,et al. A multi-resolution envelope-power based model for speech intelligibility. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[25] Brian C J Moore,et al. The importance for speech intelligibility of random fluctuations in "steady" background noise. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[26] Larry E Humes,et al. Changes in hearing-aid benefit following 1 or 2 years of hearing-aid use by older adults. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.
[27] J. C. Steinberg,et al. Factors Governing the Intelligibility of Speech Sounds , 1945 .
[28] N. Viemeister,et al. Temporal modulation transfer functions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1985, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.
[29] Michael K. Qin,et al. Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[30] T. Dau. Modeling auditory processing of amplitude modulation , 1997 .
[31] M F Dorman,et al. The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[32] R. Shannon,et al. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[33] Dan Gnansia,et al. Role of slow temporal modulations in speech identification for cochlear implant users , 2014, International journal of audiology.
[34] Brian C J Moore,et al. Notionally steady background noise acts primarily as a modulation masker of speech. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[35] Torsten Daub. Modeling auditory processing of amplitude modulation I. Detection and masking with narrow-band carriers , 1997 .
[36] Peggy B Nelson,et al. Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[37] Andrew J Oxenham,et al. Intelligibility of whispered speech in stationary and modulated noise maskers. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[38] Peggy B Nelson,et al. Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[39] T. Houtgast. Frequency selectivity in amplitude-modulation detection. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[40] T. Houtgast,et al. The concept of signal-to-noise ratio in the modulation domain and speech intelligibility. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[41] Zachary M. Smith,et al. Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception , 2002, Nature.
[42] R V Shannon,et al. Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.
[43] Jong Ho Won,et al. Spectral-Ripple Resolution Correlates with Speech Reception in Noise in Cochlear Implant Users , 2007, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.
[44] R. Plomp,et al. Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[45] B. Moore,et al. Benefit of high-rate envelope cues in vocoder processing: effect of number of channels and spectral region. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[46] Andrew J Oxenham,et al. Assessing the role of spectral and intensity cues in spectral ripple detection and discrimination in cochlear-implant users. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[47] Norman C. Beaulieu,et al. Accurate simple closed-form approximations to Rayleigh sum distributions and densities , 2005, IEEE Communications Letters.
[48] Michael F Dorman,et al. Development and Validation of the AzBio Sentence Lists , 2012, Ear and hearing.
[49] Fan-Gang Zeng,et al. Cochlear-implant spatial selectivity with monopolar, bipolar and tripolar stimulation , 2012, Hearing Research.
[50] S. Boll,et al. Suppression of acoustic noise in speech using spectral subtraction , 1979 .
[51] K. D. Kryter. Methods for the Calculation and Use of the Articulation Index , 1962 .
[52] R. Shannon. Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[53] HighWire Press. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London , 1781, The London Medical Journal.
[54] G. Studebaker. A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.
[55] Louis D Braida,et al. Speech reception by listeners with real and simulated hearing impairment: effects of continuous and interrupted noise. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[56] Gail S Donaldson,et al. Spatial tuning curves from apical, middle, and basal electrodes in cochlear implant users. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[57] S. Rosen. Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.
[58] B J Kwon,et al. Consonant identification under maskers with sinusoidal modulation: masking release or modulation interference? , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[59] Joshua G W Bernstein,et al. Effects of spectral smearing and temporal fine-structure distortion on the fluctuating-masker benefit for speech at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[60] H. Levitt. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[61] R. Plomp,et al. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[62] D. Grantham,et al. Modulation masking: effects of modulation frequency, depth, and phase. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.