A comparison of the speech understanding provided by acoustic models of fixed-channel and channel-picking signal processors for cochlear implants.

Vowels, consonants, and sentences were processed by two cochlear-implant signal-processing strategies-a fixed-channel strategy and a channel-picking strategy-and the resulting signals were presented to listeners with normal hearing for identification. At issue was the number of channels of stimulation needed in each strategy to achieve an equivalent level of speech recognition in quiet and in noise. In quiet, 8 fixed channels allowed a performance maximum for the most difficult stimulus material. A similar level of performance was reached with a 6-of-20 channel-picking strategy. In noise, 10 fixed channels allowed a performance maximum for the most difficult stimulus material. A similar level of performance was reached with a 9-of-20 strategy. Both strategies are capable of providing a very high level of speech recognition. Choosing between the two strategies may, ultimately, depend on issues that are independent of speech recognition-such as ease of device programming.

[1]  Q J Fu,et al.  Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[3]  B S Wilson,et al.  The future of cochlear implants. , 1997, British journal of audiology.

[4]  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.

[5]  B. Wilson,et al.  Cochlear Implants: Principles & Practices , 2000 .

[6]  H J McDermott,et al.  A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  R. J. Halsey,et al.  Analysis-synthesis telephony with special reference to the vocoder , 1948 .

[8]  A Boothroyd,et al.  Speech recognition with reduced spectral cues as a function of age. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  F. J. Hill,et al.  Speech recognition as a function of channel capacity in a discrete set of channels. , 1968, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Franklin S. Cooper,et al.  Preliminary Studies of Speech Produced by a Pattern Playback , 1950 .

[11]  Franklin S. Cooper,et al.  Peakpicker: A Band‐Width Compression Device , 1957 .

[12]  P C Loizou,et al.  Signal-processing techniques for cochlear implants. , 1999, IEEE engineering in medicine and biology magazine : the quarterly magazine of the Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society.

[13]  N. Cohen,et al.  Cochlear Implants , 2000 .

[14]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Morphometric and Histochemical Study of the Human Vocal Muscle , 2000, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[16]  Performance of spectral-maxima and fixed-channel algorithms for coding speech in quiet and in noise , 2000 .

[17]  R. Stone Cochlear Implant Technology: The Future is Now , 1995 .

[18]  J. Hillenbrand,et al.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

[20]  F G Zeng,et al.  Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[21]  M. Dorman,et al.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Word Recognition by Children Listening to Speech Processed into a Small Number of Channels: Data from Normal-Hearing Children and Children with Cochlear Implants , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[23]  M F Dorman,et al.  Recognition of Sentences in Noise by Normal-Hearing Listeners Using Simulations of Speak-Type Cochlear Implant Signal Processors , 2000, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[24]  B. S. Wilson,et al.  Comparative studies of speech processing strategies for cochlear implants , 1988, The Laryngoscope.

[25]  William M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1991, Nature.

[26]  P C Loizou,et al.  On the number of channels needed to understand speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Mimicking the human ear , 1998, IEEE Signal Process. Mag..