Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening.
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measurements , 1969, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics.
[2] David M. Landsberger,et al. Virtual channel discrimination is improved by current focusing in cochlear implant recipients , 2009, Hearing Research.
[3] Ning Zhou,et al. Lexical Tone Perception with HiResolution and HiResolution 120 Sound-Processing Strategies in Pediatric Mandarin-Speaking Cochlear Implant Users , 2009, Ear and hearing.
[4] Qian-Jie Fu,et al. Voice gender identification by cochlear implant users: the role of spectral and temporal resolution. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[5] R. H. Bolt,et al. Theory of Speech masking by reverberation , 1949 .
[6] T. Houtgast,et al. The Modulation Transfer Function in Room Acoustics as a Predictor of Speech Intelligibility , 1973 .
[7] Chaz Yee Toh,et al. Effects of reverberation on perceptual segregation of competing voices. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[8] 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.
[9] Jan Wouters,et al. Better place-coding of the fundamental frequency in cochlear implants. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[10] R W Hukin,et al. Effects of reverberation on spatial, prosodic, and vocal-tract size cues to selective attention. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[11] 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.
[12] Sharon A McKarns,et al. The Benefits of Combining Acoustic and Electric Stimulation for the Recognition of Speech, Voice and Melodies , 2007, Audiology and Neurotology.
[13] Mark Downing,et al. Current Steering Creates Additional Pitch Percepts in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2007, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.
[14] N. Popplewell,et al. Combined effects of early reflections and background noise on speech intelligibility , 1989 .
[15] Margaret W Skinner,et al. Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Recipients: Comparison of Standard HiRes and HiRes 120 Sound Processing , 2009, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.
[16] Bruce J Gantz,et al. Combining acoustic and electrical speech processing: Iowa/Nucleus hybrid implant , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.
[17] B C Moore,et al. Effects of carrier frequency, modulation rate, and modulation waveform on the detection of modulation and the discrimination of modulation type (amplitude modulation versus frequency modulation). , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[18] Bruce J Gantz,et al. Preservation of Hearing in Cochlear Implant Surgery: Advantages of Combined Electrical and Acoustical Speech Processing , 2005, The Laryngoscope.
[19] Gail S Donaldson,et al. BKB-SIN and ANL Predict Perceived Communication Ability in Cochlear Implant Users , 2009, Ear and hearing.
[20] S. Gelfand,et al. Effects of small room reverberation upon the recognition of some consonant features , 1979 .
[21] Fan-Gang Zeng,et al. Contribution of frequency modulation to speech recognition in noise. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[22] Michael F Dorman,et al. Information From the Voice Fundamental Frequency (F0) Region Accounts for the Majority of the Benefit When Acoustic Stimulation Is Added to Electric Stimulation , 2010, Ear and hearing.
[23] R. Hartmann,et al. Electric-Acoustic Stimulation of the Auditory System , 1999, ORL.
[24] Kostas Kokkinakis,et al. The impact of reverberant self-masking and overlap-masking effects on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners (L). , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[25] 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.
[26] Michael K. Qin,et al. Effects of Envelope-Vocoder Processing on F0 Discrimination and Concurrent-Vowel Identification , 2005, Ear and hearing.
[27] B. Moore,et al. Suggested formulae for calculating auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation patterns. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[28] Lucas H M Mens,et al. Current Steering and Current Focusing in Cochlear Implants: Comparison of Monopolar, Tripolar, and Virtual Channel Electrode Configurations , 2008, Ear and hearing.
[29] Brian C J Moore,et al. Coding of Sounds in the Auditory System and Its Relevance to Signal Processing and Coding in Cochlear Implants , 2003, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.
[30] Margaret W Skinner,et al. Nucleus® 24 Advanced Encoder Conversion Study: Performance versus Preference , 2002, Ear and hearing.
[31] Markus Brunner,et al. Speech and music perception with the new fine structure speech coding strategy: preliminary results , 2007, Acta oto-laryngologica.
[32] Christian Lorenzi,et al. Perception of temporal fine-structure cues in speech with minimal envelope cues for listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss , 2010, International journal of audiology.
[33] C von Ilberg,et al. Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. New technology for severe hearing loss. , 1999, ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties.
[34] Brian C J Moore,et al. Effects of moderate cochlear hearing loss on the ability to benefit from temporal fine structure information in speech. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[35] Dominik Riss,et al. 1-year results using the Opus speech processor with the fine structure speech coding strategy , 2009, Acta oto-laryngologica.
[36] G. E. Peterson,et al. Control Methods Used in a Study of the Vowels , 1951 .
[37] 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.
[38] Robert V. Shannon,et al. Effect of Stimulation Rate on Cochlear Implant Users’ Phoneme, Word and Sentence Recognition in Quiet and in Noise , 2010, Audiology and Neurotology.
[39] Christopher A Brown,et al. Low-frequency speech cues and simulated electric-acoustic hearing. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[40] 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.
[41] J. P. A. Lochner,et al. The intelligibility of speech under reverberant conditions , 1961 .
[42] Sid P. Bacon,et al. Fundamental frequency and speech intelligibility in background noise , 2010, Hearing Research.
[43] Emily Buss,et al. Temporal Fine-Structure Cues to Speech and Pure Tone Modulation in Observers with Sensorineural Hearing Loss , 2004, Ear and hearing.
[44] Colleen Psarros,et al. Speech Recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS Speech Coding Strategies in Newly Implanted Adults , 2002, Ear and hearing.
[45] H. Traunmüller,et al. Acoustic effects of variation in vocal effort by men, women, and children. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[46] Monita Chatterjee,et al. Processing F0 with cochlear implants: Modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition , 2008, Hearing Research.
[47] A K Nábĕlek,et al. Influence of the precedence effect on word identification by normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[48] B. Moore. The Role of Temporal Fine Structure Processing in Pitch Perception, Masking, and Speech Perception for Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired People , 2008, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.
[49] J.P.A. Lochner,et al. The influence of reflections on auditorium acoustics , 1964 .
[50] O Ghitza,et al. On the upper cutoff frequency of the auditory critical-band envelope detectors in the context of speech perception. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[51] Blake S. Wilson,et al. Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future , 2008, Hearing Research.
[52] René H. Gifford,et al. Evidence for the Expansion of Adult Cochlear Implant Candidacy , 2010, Ear and hearing.
[53] Jay T. Rubinstein,et al. Discrimination of Schroeder-Phase Harmonic Complexes by Normal-Hearing and Cochlear-Implant Listeners , 2008, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.
[54] Richard L Freyman,et al. Effects of reverberation and masking on speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[55] M. Dorman,et al. Performance of Patients Using Different Cochlear Implant Systems: Effects of Input Dynamic Range , 2007, Ear and hearing.
[56] Jayaganesh Swaminathan,et al. Quantifying Envelope and Fine-Structure Coding in Auditory Nerve Responses to Chimaeric Speech , 2009, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.
[57] Sid P. Bacon,et al. Achieving Electric-Acoustic Benefit with a Modulated Tone , 2009, Ear and hearing.
[58] Brian C. J. Moore. The role of temporal fine structure in normal and impaired hearing , 2007 .
[59] 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.
[60] Michael F Dorman,et al. Combined electric and contralateral acoustic hearing: word and sentence recognition with bimodal hearing. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.
[61] H J McDermott,et al. Pitch ranking with nonsimultaneous dual-electrode electrical stimulation of the cochlea. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[62] T. Houtgast,et al. Predicting speech intelligibility in rooms from the modulation transfer function, I. General room acoustics , 1980 .
[63] J. T Rubinstein,et al. Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation , 1999, Hearing Research.
[64] Fan-Gang Zeng,et al. Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[65] Christiane Séguin,et al. Users’ experience of a cochlear implant combined with a hearing aid , 2009, International journal of audiology.
[66] Christopher A Brown,et al. On the mechanisms involved in the recovery of envelope information from temporal fine structure. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[67] Christian Lorenzi,et al. Role of spectral and temporal cues in restoring missing speech information. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[68] Torsten Dau,et al. Binaural pitch perception in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners , 2007, Hearing Research.
[69] J. Hillenbrand,et al. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[70] Brian C J Moore,et al. Moderate cochlear hearing loss leads to a reduced ability to use temporal fine structure information. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[71] Patrick N Plyler,et al. The acceptance of background noise in adult cochlear implant users. , 2008, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.
[72] S. Drgas,et al. Perception of speech in reverberant conditions using AM–FM cochlear implant simulation , 2010, Hearing Research.
[73] Zachary M. Smith,et al. Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception , 2002, Nature.