Effect of frequency boundary assignment on vowel recognition with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy.

Two speech processor programs (MAPs) differing only in electrode frequency boundary assignments were created for each of eight Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant recipients. The default MAPs used typical frequency boundaries, and the experimental MAPs reassigned one additional electrode to vowel formant regions. Four objective speech tests and a questionnaire were used to evaluate speech recognition with the two MAPs. Results for the closed-set vowel test and the formant discrimination test showed small but significant improvement in scores with the experimental MAP. Differences for the Consonant-Vowel Nucleus-Consonant word test and closed-set consonant test were nonsignificant. Feature analysis revealed no significant differences in information transmission. Seven of the eight subjects preferred the experimental MAP, reporting louder, crisper, and clearer sound. The results suggest that Nucleus 24 recipients should be given an opportunity to compare a MAP that assigns more electrodes in vowel formant regions with the default MAP to determine which provides the most benefit in everyday life.

[1]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. , 1962, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[2]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  R. Shannon,et al.  Effects of electrode configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[4]  R V Shannon,et al.  Consonant recordings for speech testing. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  M W Skinner,et al.  Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the multipeak (MPEAK) and spectral peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies II. Consonants. , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[6]  Margaret W. Skinner,et al.  Hearing Aid Evaluation , 1988 .

[7]  M W Skinner,et al.  Effect of frequency boundary assignment on speech recognition with the speak speech-coding strategy. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[8]  C M McKay,et al.  Optimizing electrode and filter selection in cochlear implant speech processor maps. , 2001, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[9]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Nucleus® 24 Advanced Encoder Conversion Study: Performance versus Preference , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[10]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Frequency-importance and transfer functions for the Auditec of St. Louis recordings of the NU-6 word test. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[11]  P M Seligman,et al.  Speech perception using a two-formant 22-electrode cochlear prosthesis in quiet and in noise. , 1987, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[12]  T. Välimaa,et al.  Phoneme recognition and confusions with multichannel cochlear implants: consonants. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[13]  Wolfgang Gaggl,et al.  Recognition of Speech Presented at Soft to Loud Levels by Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients of Three Cochlear Implant Systems , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Perceptual learning following changes in the frequency-to-electrode assignment with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  J. C. Steinberg,et al.  Factors Governing the Intelligibility of Speech Sounds , 1945 .

[16]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Effects of Stimulation Rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE Speech Coding Strategy , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[17]  J W Hawks,et al.  A formant bandwidth estimation procedure for vowel synthesis [43.72.Ja]. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  R. Shannon,et al.  Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Benjamin Munson,et al.  Phonetic identification in quiet and in noise by listeners with cochlear implants. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  A. R. Kaiser,et al.  Perceptual "vowel spaces" of cochlear implant users: implications for the study of auditory adaptation to spectral shift. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  K. Plant,et al.  Speech Perception as a Function of Electrical Stimulation Rate: Using the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[22]  Colette M McKay,et al.  Frequency-to-electrode allocation and speech perception with cochlear implants. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  M A Svirsky,et al.  Long-term auditory adaptation to a modified peripheral frequency map , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[24]  Pavlovic Cv.  Articulation index predictions of speech intelligibility in hearing aid selection. , 1988 .

[25]  M. Skinner,et al.  Optimization of Speech Processor Fitting Strategies for Chinese‐Speaking Cochlear Implantees , 1998, The Laryngoscope.

[26]  M W Skinner,et al.  Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant. , 1999, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[27]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Frequency-importance and transfer functions for recorded CID W-22 word lists. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[28]  Colette M McKay,et al.  Optimizing frequency-to-electrode allocation in cochlear implants. , 2004, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[29]  D. T. Lawson,et al.  New processing strategies in cochlear implantation. , 1995, The American journal of otology.

[30]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  A frequency importance function for continuous discourse. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  Hugo Fastl,et al.  On the Development of the Critical Band , 1972 .

[32]  H J McDermott,et al.  The relationship between speech perception and electrode discrimination in cochlear implantees. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  Sound Field Audiometry: Recommended Stimuli and Procedures , 1984, Ear and hearing.

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

[35]  Jonathan G. Fiscus,et al.  Darpa Timit Acoustic-Phonetic Continuous Speech Corpus CD-ROM {TIMIT} | NIST , 1993 .

[36]  H. Traunmüller.  Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale , 1990 .

[37]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Erratum: An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 27, 339 (1955)] , 1955 .

[38]  T. M. Nearey.  Static, dynamic, and relational properties in vowel perception. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  R V Shannon,et al.  Effects of electrode location and spacing on phoneme recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[40]  Andrea L Pittman,et al.  Aided Perception of /s/ and /z/ by Hearing-Impaired Children , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[41]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Temporal cues for consonant recognition: training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  M. D. Wang,et al.  Consonant confusions in noise: a study of perceptual features. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  D. Klatt,et al.  Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[45]  R. S. McGowan,et al.  The emergence of phonetic segments: evidence from the spectral structure of fricative-vowel syllables spoken by children and adults. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[46]  Jennifer Arcaroli,et al.  The Nucleus® 24 Contour™ Cochlear Implant System: Adult Clinical Trial Results , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[47]  J K Shallop,et al.  Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 Channel Cochlear Implant System. , 1994, The American journal of otology.

[48]  M. Demorest,et al.  Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[49]  A. Boothroyd,et al.  The Hearing Aid Input: A Phonemic Approach to Assessing the Spectral Distribution of Speech , 1994, Ear and hearing.

[50]  M W Skinner,et al.  Parameter selection to optimize speech recognition with the Nucleus implant. , 1997, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[51]  D. Pascoe,et al.  Frequency Responses of Hearing Aids and Their Effects on the Speech Perception of Hearing-Impaired Subjects , 1975 .

[52]  M W Skinner,et al.  Effects of Formant Bandwidth on the Identification of Synthetic Vowels by Cochlear Implant Recipients , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[53]  P Seligman,et al.  Architecture of the Spectra 22 speech processor. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[54]  M. Skinner,et al.  Performance of postlinguistically deaf adults with the Wearable Speech Processor (WSP III) and Mini Speech Processor (MSP) of the Nucleus Multi-Electrode Cochlear Implant. , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[55]  M F Dorman,et al.  The recognition of vowels produced by men, women, boys, and girls by cochlear implant patients using a six-channel CIS processor. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.