Comodulation masking release and speech perception: Implications for dip‐listening by cochlear implant patients.

2009 ◽  
Vol 125 (4) ◽  
pp. 2633-2633
Author(s):  
Antje Ihlefeld ◽  
Barbara G. Shinn‐Cunningham ◽  
Robert P. Carlyon
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Masking Release ◽  
Comodulation Masking Release

scholarly journals Ecological validity of masking release with speech-like stimuli

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyojin Kim ◽  
Viktorija Ratkute ◽  
Bastian Epp
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Temporal Dynamics ◽  
Ecological Validity ◽  
Detection Thresholds ◽  
Formant Frequencies ◽  
Masking Release ◽  
Grouping Effect ◽  
Masking Level Difference ◽  
Masking Noise ◽  
Comodulation Masking Release

Comodulated masking noise and binaural cues can facilitate detecting a target sound from noise. These cues can induce a decrease in detection thresholds, quantified as comodulation masking release (CMR) and binaural masking level difference (BMLD), respectively. However, their relevance to speech perception is unclear as most studies have used artificial stimuli different from speech. Here, we investigated their ecological validity using sounds with speech-like spectro-temporal dynamics. We evaluated the ecological validity of such grouping effect with stimuli reflecting formant changes in speech. We set three masker bands at formant frequencies F1, F2, and F3 based on CV combination: /gu/, /fu/, and /pu/. We found that the CMR was little (< 3 dB) while BMLD was comparable to previous findings (~ 9 dB). In conclusion, we suggest that other features may play a role in facilitating frequency grouping by comodulation such as the spectral proximity and the number of masker bands.

Comodulation masking release in speech identification with real and simulated cochlear-implant hearing

2012 ◽  
Vol 131 (2) ◽  
pp. 1315-1324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antje Ihlefeld ◽  
Barbara G. Shinn-Cunningham ◽  
Robert P. Carlyon
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Masking Release ◽  
Comodulation Masking Release ◽  
Speech Identification

scholarly journals Logatome Discrimination in Cochlear Implant Users: Subjective Tests Compared to the Mismatch Negativity

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 329-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torsten Rahne ◽  
Michael Ziese ◽  
Dorothea Rostalski ◽  
Roland Mühler
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Mismatch Negativity ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Discrimination Test ◽  
Speech Database ◽  
Automated Speech Recognition ◽  
Related Potentials

This paper describes a logatome discrimination test for the assessment of speech perception in cochlear implant users (CI users), based on a multilingual speech database, the Oldenburg Logatome Corpus, which was originally recorded for the comparison of human and automated speech recognition. The logatome discrimination task is based on the presentation of 100 logatome pairs (i.e., nonsense syllables) with balanced representations of alternating “vowel-replacement” and “consonant-replacement” paradigms in order to assess phoneme confusions. Thirteen adult normal hearing listeners and eight adult CI users, including both good and poor performers, were included in the study and completed the test after their speech intelligibility abilities were evaluated with an established sentence test in noise. Furthermore, the discrimination abilities were measured electrophysiologically by recording the mismatch negativity (MMN) as a component of auditory event-related potentials. The results show a clear MMN response only for normal hearing listeners and CI users with good performance, correlating with their logatome discrimination abilities. Higher discrimination scores for vowel-replacement paradigms than for the consonant-replacement paradigms were found. We conclude that the logatome discrimination test is well suited to monitor the speech perception skills of CI users. Due to the large number of available spoken logatome items, the Oldenburg Logatome Corpus appears to provide a useful and powerful basis for further development of speech perception tests for CI users.

scholarly journals Meta-Analysis—Correlation between Spiral Ganglion Cell Counts and Speech Perception with a Cochlear Implant

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 220-226
Author(s):  
Yew-Song Cheng ◽  
Mario A. Svirsky
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Spiral Ganglion ◽  
Spiral Ganglion Cell ◽  
Cell Counts ◽  
Temporal Bones ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Existing Data

The presence of spiral ganglion cells (SGCs) is widely accepted to be a prerequisite for successful speech perception with a cochlear implant (CI), because SGCs provide the only known conduit between the implant electrode and the central auditory system. By extension, it has been hypothesized that the number of SGCs might be an important factor in CI outcomes. An impressive body of work has been published on findings from the laborious process of collecting temporal bones from CI users and counting the number of SGCs to correlate those numbers with speech perception scores, but the findings thus far have been conflicting. We performed a meta-analysis of all published studies with the hope that combining existing data may help us reach a more definitive conclusion about the relationship between SGC count and speech perception scores in adults.

Psychophysical and speech perception studies: A case report on a binaural cochlear implant subject

1993 ◽  
Vol 94 (6) ◽  
pp. 3178-3189 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. M. van Hoesel ◽  
Y. C. Tong ◽  
R. D. Hollow ◽  
G. M. Clark
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant

Comodulation masking release in an off-frequency masking paradigm

2015 ◽  
Vol 138 (2) ◽  
pp. 1194-1205
Author(s):  
Ramona Grzeschik ◽  
Björn Lübken ◽  
Jesko L. Verhey
Keyword(s):  
Masking Release ◽  
Comodulation Masking Release

Reduction in High-Frequency Hearing Aid Gain Can Improve Performance in Patients With Contralateral Cochlear Implant: A Pilot Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 462-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica J. Messersmith ◽  
Lindsey E. Jorgensen ◽  
Jessica A. Hagg
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Chart Review ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Improve Performance ◽  
Bimodal Condition ◽  
Overall Performance ◽  
Age Range ◽  
Clinic Population

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine whether an alternate fitting strategy, specifically adjustment to gains in a hearing aid (HA), would improve performance in patients who experienced poorer performance in the bimodal condition when the HA was fit to traditional targets. Method This study was a retrospective chart review from a local clinic population seen during a 6-month period. Participants included 6 users of bimodal stimulation. Two performed poorer in the cochlear implant (CI) + HA condition than in the CI-only condition. One individual performed higher in the bimodal condition, but the overall performance was low. Three age range–matched users whose performance increased when the HA was used in conjunction with a CI were also included. The HA gain was reduced beyond 2000 Hz. Speech perception scores were obtained pre- and postmodification to the HA fitting. Results All listeners whose HA was programmed using the modified approach demonstrated improved speech perception scores with the modified HA fit in the bimodal condition when compared with the traditional HA fit in the bimodal condition. Conclusion Modifications to gains above 2000 Hz in the HA may improve performance for bimodal listeners who perform more poorly in the bimodal condition when the HA is fit to traditional targets.

scholarly journals Cochlear implant codes and speech perception in the profoundly deaf

1981 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald S. Wasserman
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant

scholarly journals Bone-anchored hearing system, contralateral routing of signals hearing aid or cochlear implant: what is best in single-sided deafness?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Till F. Jakob ◽  
Iva Speck ◽  
Ann-Kathrin Rauch ◽  
Frederike Hassepass ◽  
Manuel C. Ketterer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Sound Localisation ◽  
Therapy Option ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Objective Hearing Tests

Abstract Purpose The aim of the study was to compare long-term results after 1 year in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) who were fitted with different hearing aids. The participants tested contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing aids and bone-anchored hearing systems (BAHS). They were also informed about the possibility of a cochlear implant (CI) and chose one of the three devices. We also investigated which factors influenced the choice of device. Methods Prospective study with 89 SSD participants who were divided into three groups by choosing BAHS, CROS, or CI. All participants received test batteries with both objective hearing tests (speech perception in noise and sound localisation) and subjective questionnaires. Results 16 participants opted for BAHS-, 13 for CROS- and 30 for CI-treatment. The greater the subjective impairment caused by SSD, the more likely patients were to opt for surgical treatment (BAHS or CI). The best results in terms of speech perception in noise (especially when sound reaches the deaf ear and noise the hearing ear), sound localization, and subjective results were achieved with CI. Conclusion The best results regarding the therapy of SSD are achieved with a CI, followed by BAHS. This was evident both in objective tests and in the subjective questionnaires. Nevertheless, an individual decision is required in each case as to which SSD therapy option is best for the patient. Above all, the patient's subjective impairment and expectations should be included in the decision-making process.

Disrupting within-channel cues to comodulation masking release

2011 ◽  
Vol 129 (5) ◽  
pp. 3181-3193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon A. Goldman ◽  
Thomas Baer ◽  
Brian C. J. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Masking Release ◽  
Comodulation Masking Release
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document