Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Speech (Sound) Processing

  • Chapter
Cochlear Implants

Part of the book series: Modern Acoustics and Signal Processing ((MASP))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ainsworth, A. 1992. Advances in speech hearing and language processing. London, JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, W. A. 1976. Mechanisms of speech recognition. Oxford, Pergamon Press: 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, W. A. and J. B. Millar. 1972. The effect of relative formant amplitude on the perceived identity of synthetic vowels. Language and Speech 15: 328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, M., P. Pegg, C. James and P. J. Blamey. 1997. Speech perception in noise with implant and hearing aid. American Journal of Otology 18: S140–S141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arndt, P., S. Staller, J. Arcaroli, A. Hines and K. Ebinger. 1999. Within-subject comparison of advanced coding strategies in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant. Cochlear Corporation Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balkany, T., W. Bogess and B. Dinner. 1988. Binaural cochlear implantation: comparison of 3M/House and Nucleus 22 devices with evidence of sensory integration. Laryngoscope 98: 1040–1043.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, J. G., P. J. Blamey and L. F. A. Martin. 2002a. A multidimensional scaling analysis of tone discrimination ability in Cantonese-speaking children using a cochlear implant. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 16: 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, J. G., P. J. Blamey, L. F. A. Martin, et al. 2002b. Tone discrimination in Cantonese-speaking children with cochlear implants. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 16: 79–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battmer, R.-D., D. Gnadeberg, D. J. Allum-Mecklenberg and T. Lenarz. 1994. Matched-pair comparisons for adults using the Clarion or Nucleus devices. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 104: 251–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench, R. J. and J. Bamford. 1979. Speech-hearing tests and the spoken language of hearing-impaired children. London, Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blamey, P. J. 1990. Multimodal stimulation for speech perception. In: Rowe, M. and L. Aitkin, eds. Information processing in mammalian auditory and tactile systems. New York, Wiley-Liss: 267–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blamey, P. J. and G. M. Clark. 1990. Place coding of vowel formants for cochlear implant patients. British Journal of Audiology 88: 667–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blamey, P. J., R. C. Dowell, A. M. Brown, G. M. Clark and P. M. Seligman. 1987. Vowel and consonant recognition of cochlear implant patients using formant-estimating speech processors. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 82: 48–57.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Blamey, P. J., R. C. Dowell, Y. C. Tong, A. M. Brown, S. M. Luscombe and G. M. Clark. 1984a. Speech processing studies using an acoustic model of a multiple-channel cochlear implant. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 76: 104–110.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Blamey, P. J., R. C. Dowell, Y. C. Tong and G. M. Clark. 1984b. An acoustic model of a multiple-channel cochlear implant. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 76: 97–103.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Blamey, P. J., L. F. Martin and G. M. Clark. 1985. A comparison of three speech coding strategies using an acoustic model of a cochlear implant. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77: 209–217.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Blamey, P. J., E. Parisi and G. M. Clark. 1995. Pitch matching of electric and acoustic stimuli. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 104: 220–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blamey, P. J., B. C. Pyman, M. Gordon, et al. 1992. Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 101: 342–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boothroyd, A. 1968. Developments in speech audiometry. Sound 2: 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, J. T. 1977. Basic electronics for scientists. 3rd edition. Tokyo, McGraw Kogakusha.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, I. C., L. S. Irlicht, M. W. White, S. J. O’Leary and G. M. Clark. 2000. Renewal-process approximation of a stochastic threshold model for electrical neural stimulation. Journal of Computational Neuroscience 9: 119–132.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Buden, S. V., M. Brown, A. G. Paolini and G. M. Clark. 1996. Temporal and entrainment response properties of cochlear nucleus neurons to intra cochleal electrical stimulation in the cat. Proceedings of the Australian Neuroscience Society 7: 104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burian, K., B. Eisenwort, E. Hochmair and I. Hochmair-Desoyer. 1984. Clinical experience with the “Vienna cochlear implant.” In Keidel, W. D. and P. Finkenzeller, eds. Cochlear implants in clinical use. Advances in audiology. Basel, Karger 2: 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carhart, R. 1965. Monaural and binaural discrimination against competing sentences. International Audiology 4: 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao, Y R. 1930. A system of tone letters. Le Maître Phonétique 45: 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. and M. Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York, Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chouard, C. H., C. Fugain, B. Meyer and F. Chabolle. 1985. The Chorimac-12. A multichannel cochlear implant for total deafness. Description and clinical results. Acta Oto-Rhino-Laryngologica Belgica 39(4): 735–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chouard, C. H., B. Meyer, F. Chabolle, N. Alcaras and D. Gegu. 1984. Sound signal processing. Acta Oto-Laryngologica-supplement 411: 95–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. M. 1969. Responses of cells in the superior olivary complex of the cat to electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. Experimental Neurology 24: 124–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. M. 1986. The University of Melbourne/Cochlear Corporation (Nucleus) program. Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America 19: 329–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. M. 1987. The University of Melbourne-Nucleus multi-electrode cochlear implant. Advances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. Volume 38. Basel, Karger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. M. 2001. Editorial Cochlear implants: climbing new mountains. The Graham Fraser Memorial Lecture 2001. Cochlear Implants International 2(2): 75–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. M., R. C. Black, D. J. Dewhurst, I. C. Forster, J. F. Patrick and Y. C. Tong. 1977. A multiple-electrode hearing prosthesis for cochlear implantation in deaf patients. Medical Progress Through Technology 5: 127–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. M., R. C. Black, I. C. Forster, J. F. Patrick and Y. C. Tong. 1978. Design criteriaof a multiple-electrode cochlear implant hearing prosthesis. Journal of the AcousticalSociety of America 63: 631–633.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. M., G. J. Dooley and P. J. Blamey. 1991. Combined electrical and acoustical stimulation using a bimodal speech processor. American Pediatric Otolaryngological Society Meeting, Hawaii, May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. M., R. C. Dowell, R. S. C. Cowan, B. C. Pyman and R. L. Webb. 1996. Multicenter evaluations of speech perception in adults and children with the Nucleus (Cochlear) 22-channel cochlear implant. In: Portmann, M., ed. Transplants and implants in otology III. Amsterdam, Kugler: 353–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. M. and Y C. Tong. 1981. Multiple-electrode cochlear implant for profound or total hearing loss: a review. Medical Journal of Australia 1: 428–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. M. and Y C. Tong. 1982. A multiple-channel cochlear implant. A summary of results for two patients. Archives of Otolaryngology 108: 214–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. M., Y C. Tong, Q. R. Bailey, et al. 1978. A multiple-electrode cochlear implant. Journal of the Oto-Laryngological Society of Australia 4: 208–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. M., Y C. Tong, R. C. Black, I. C. Forster, J. F. Patrick and D. J. Dewhurst. 1977. A multiple electrode cochlear implant. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 91: 935–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. M., Y C. Tong and R. C. Dowell. 1984. Comparison of two cochlear implant speech-processing strategies. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 93: 127–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. M., Y C. Tong and L. F. Martin. 1981a. A multiple-channel cochlear implant. An evaluation using open-set CID sentences. Laryngoscope 91: 628–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. M., Y C. Tong, L. F. Martin and P. A. Busby. 1981b. A multiple-channel cochlear implant. An evaluation using an open-set word test. Acta Oto-Laryngologica 91: 173–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. M., Y C. Tong, L. F. A. Martin, et al. 1981c. A multiple-channel cochlear implant: an evaluation using nonsense syllables. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 90: 227–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, N. L., S. B. Waltzman and S. G. Fisher. 1993. A prospective, randomised study of cochlear implants. New England Journal of Medicine 328: 233–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, L., T. Zwolan, J. O’Neill and G. Wakefield. 1994. Analysis of electrode pair confusions and implications for speech recognition in cochlear implant listeners. In: Popelka, G.R, ed. Abstracts of the Seventeenth Midwinter Meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, St. Petersburg, FL: 161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, H. and S. R. Silverman. 1978. Hearing and deafness, 4th edition. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delattre, P., A. M. Liberman and F. S. Cooper. 1952. An experimental study of the acoustic determinants of vowel color observations on one and two formant vowels synthesised from spectrographic patterns. Word 8: 195–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewhurst, D. J. 1976. An introduction of biomedical instrumentation. London, Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, D. D., T. S. Bell, R. N. Rossman and G. E. Kincaid. 1986. Articulation index predictions of contextually dependent works. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 80: 82–92.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, G. J., P. J. Blamey, P. M. Seligman, et al. 1993. Combined electrical and acoustical stimulation using a bimodal prosthesis. Archives of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery 119: 55–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorman, M. F. 1993. Speech perception by adults. In: Tyler, R. S., ed. Cochlear implants. Audiological foundations. San Diego, Singular: 145–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorman, M. F., K. Dankowski and G. McCandless. 1989. Consonant recognition as a function of the number of channels of stimulation by patients who use the Symbion cochlear implant. Ear and Hearing 10: 288–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorman, M. F., P. C. Loizou, J. Fitzke and Z. Tu. 1998. The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 104: 3583–3585.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Dorman, M. F., P. C. Loizou and D. Rainey. 1997. Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102: 2403–2411.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Dorman, M. F., S. Soli, K. Dankowski, L. M. Smith, G. McCandless and J. Parkin. 1990. Acoustic cues for consonant identification by patients who use the Ineraid cochlear implant. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88(5): 2074–2079.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Dowell, R. C. 1991. Speech perception in noise for multichannel cochlear implant users. PhD thesis. University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowell, R. C., G. M. Clark, P. M. Seligman, P. J. Blamey, A. M. Brown and Y. C. Tong. 1986a. Perception of connected speech without lipreading, using a multichannel hearing prosthesis. Acta Oto-Laryngologica 102: 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowell, R. C., M. A. Marsh, R. D. Hollow, et al. 1993. Clinical comparison of open-set speech perception with the MSP and WSPIII speech processors and preliminary results for the new SPEAK processor. Abstracts of Third International Cochlear Implant Conference, Innsbruck: 14.6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowell, R. C., L. F. Martin, Y. C. Tong, G. M. Clark, P. M. Seligman and J. F. Patrick. 1982. A 12-consonant confusion study on a multiple-channel cochlear implant patient. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 25: 509–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowell, R. C., D. J. Mecklenburg and G. M. Clark. 1986b. Speech recognition for 40 patients receiving multichannel cochlear implants. Archives of Otolaryngology 112: 1054–1059.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowell, R. C., J. F. Patrick, P. J. Blamey, P. M. Seligman, D. K. Money and G. M. Clark. 1987a. Signal processing in quiet and noise. In: Banfai, P., ed. Cochlear implant: current situation. Proceedings of the International Cochlear Implant Symposium, September 7–12, 1987. Duren, West Germany. 495–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowell, R. C., P. M. Seligman, P. J. Blamey and G. M. Clark. 1987b. Speech perception using a two-formant 22-electrode cochlear prosthesis in quiet and in noise. Acta Oto-Laryngologica 104(5–6): 439–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowell, R. C., L. A. Whitford, P. M. Seligman, B. K.-H. Franz and G. M. Clark. 1990. Preliminary results with a miniature speech processor for the 22-electrode/Cochlear hearing prosthesis. In: Sacristan, T., ed. Otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery. Amsterdam, Kugler and Ghedini: 1167–1173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, K. J., D. Mills, J. Larky, D. Kessler, W. M. Luxford and R. A. Schindler. 1995. Consonant perception by users of Nucleus and Clarion multichannel cochlear implants. American Journal of Otology 16: 676–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudley, H. 1939. The vocoder. Bell Labs Record 17: 122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, H. K. 1950. The calculation of vowel resonances, and an electrical vocal tract. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 22(6): 740–753.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Eddington, D. K. 1980. Speech discrimination in deaf subjects with cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 68: 885–891.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Eddington, D. K. 1983. Speech recognition in deaf subjects with multichannel intracochlear electrodes. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 405: 241–258.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Edgerton, B. J. 1985. Implications of optimized single-channel cochlear implants. Hearing Journal 38: 17–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgerton, B. J. and J. A. Brimacombe. 1984. Effects of signal processing by the House-3M cochlear implant on consonant perception. Acta Oto-Laryngologica-supplement 411: 115–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erber, N. P. 1972. Auditory, visual, and auditory-visual speech recognition of consonants by children with normal and impaired hearing. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 15: 413–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fant, G. 1959. Acoustic analysis and synthesis of speech with applications to Swedish. Ericsson Technics 15: 3–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fant, G. 1973. Speech sounds and features. Cambridge, MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fant, G. and J. Martony. 1962. Instrumentation for parametric synthesis (OVE II). Stockholm, Speech transmission lab QPR: 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishman, K. E., R. V. Shannon and W. H. Slattery. 1997. Speech recognition as a function of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant processor. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 40: 1201–1215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, J. L. 1957. Difference limen for formant amplitude. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 22: 205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, J. L. and L. R. Rabiner. 1973. Speech synthesis. Stroudsburg, Hutchinson and Ross.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, J. L. and M. G. Saslow. 1958. Pitch discrimination for synthetic vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 30(5): 435–442.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, H. and J. C. Steinberg. 1929. Articulation testing methods. Bell Systems Technology Journal 8: 806–854.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fourcin, A. J. 1968. Speech source inference. IEEE Transactions of Audio Electroacoustics AU-16: 65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fourcin, A. J., S. M. Rosen, B. C. Moore, et al. 1979. External electrical stimulation of the cochlea: clinical, psychophysical, speech-perceptual and histological findings. British Journal of Audiology 13(3): 85–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, N. R. and J. C. Steinberg. 1947. Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 19: 90–119.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Fry, D. B. 1979. The physics of speech. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu, Q.-J. and R. V. Shannon. 1999. Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105: 1889–1900.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Fugain, C., B. Meyer, F. Chabolle and C. H. Chouard. 1984. Clinical results of the French multichannel cochlear implant. Acta Oto-Laryngologica-supplement 411: 237–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujimura, O. 1962. Analysis of nasal consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 34: 1865–1875.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Gantz, B. J., B. F. McCabe, R. S. Tyler and J. P. Preece. 1987. Evaluation of four cochlear implant designs. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 96: 145–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gantz, B. J., R. S. Tyler, J. F. Knutson, et al. 1988. Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: audiologic assessment and predictors of performance. Laryngoscope 98: 1100–1106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geier, L. L. and S. J. Norton. 1992. The effects of limiting the number of Nucleus 22 cochlear implant electrodes programmed on speech perception. Ear and Hearing 13: 340–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, L. and J. Wouters. 1999. Enhancing the speech envelope of continuous interleaved sampling processors for cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105: 2476–2484.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Grayden, D. B. and G. M. Clark. 2000. The effect of rate stimulation of the auditory nerve on phoneme recognition. In: Barlow, M., ed. Proceedings of the Eighth Australian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology. Canberra, Australian Speech Science and Technology Association: 356–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grayden, D. B. and G. M. Clark. 2001. Improved sound processor for cochlear implants. International patent application no. PCT/AU00/01038.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, J. D., D. M. Mills, B. A. Bell, W. M. Luxford and L. L. Tonokawa. 1992. Binaural cochlear implants. American Journal of Otology 13(6): 502–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. 1963. The tones of English. Archivum Linguisticum 15: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanekom, J. J. and R. V. Shannon. 1996. Place pitch discrimination and speech recognition in cochlear implant users 43: 27–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, R., G. Topp and R. Klinke. 1984a. Discharge patterns of cat primary auditory fibres with electrical stimulation of the cochlea. Hearing Research 13: 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, R., G. Topp and R. Klinke. 1984b. Electrical stimulation of the cat cochlea—discharge pattern of single auditory fibres. Advances in Audiology 1: 18–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, B. A., C. M. McKay, H. J. McDermott and G. M. Clark. 2000. The relationship between speech perception and electrode discrimination in cochlear implantees. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108: 1269–1280.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, F. J., L. P. McRae and R. P. McClellan. 1968. Speech recognition as a function of channel capacity in a discrete set of channels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 44: 13–18.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsh, I. J. 1950. The relation between localization and intelligibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 22: 196–200.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Hochmair, E. S. and I. J. Hochmair-Desoyer. 1983. Percepts elicited by different speech coding strategies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 405: 268–279.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Hochmair, E. S., I. J. Hochmair-Desoyer and K. Burian. 1979. Investigations towards an artificial cochlea. International Journal of Artificial Organs 2(5): 255–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochmair-Desoyer, I. J., E. S. Hochmair and K. Burian. 1981. Four years of experience with cochlear prostheses. Medical Progress Technology 8: 107–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochmair-Desoyer, I. J., E. S. Hochmair, R. E. Fischer and K. Burian. 1980. Cochlear prostheses in use: recent speech comprehension results. Archives of Otorhinolaryngology 229: 81–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollow, R. D., R. C. Dowell, R. S. C. Cowan, M. C. Skok, B. C. Pyman and G. M. Clark.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1995. Continuing improvements in speech processing for adult cochlear implant patients. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 104(suppl 166): 292–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, A. E., F. J. Kemler and G. E. Merwin. 1987. The effects of varying the number of cochlear implant electrodes on speech perception. American Journal of Otology 8: 240–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, W. F., K. I. Berliner and L. S. Eisenberg. 1981. The cochlear implant: 1980 update. Acta Oto-Laryngologica 91: 457–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffress, L. A. 1948. A place theory of sound localization. Physiological Psychology 41: 35–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, E., H. Levitt, A. C. Neuman and W. Weiss. 1998. Consonants-vowel intensity ratios for maximizing consonant recognition by hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103: 1098–1114.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, D. K., G. E. Loeb and M. J. Barker. 1995. Distribution of speech recognition results with the Clarion cochlear prosthesis. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 104: 283–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kewley-Port, D. and D. B. Pisoni. 1983. Perception of static and dynamic acoustic cues to place of articulation in initial stop consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 73: 1779–1793.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Kileny, P. R., T. A. Zwolan, S. Zimmerman-Phillips and J. L. Kemink. 1992. A comparison of round-window and transtympanic promontory electric stimulation in cochlear implant candidates. Ear and Hearing 13: 294–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladefoged, P. 1975. A course in phonetics. New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladefoged, P. 1993. A course in phonetics. 3rd ed. New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird, R. K. 1979. The bioengineering development of a sound encoder for an implantable hearing prosthesis for the profoundly deaf. Master of engineering science thesis. University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, W. 1953. The synthesis of speech from signals which have a low information rate. In: Communication theory. London, Butterworth: 460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, D. T., B. S. Wilson, M. Zerbi and C. C. Finley. 1996. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Third quarterly progress report. NIH contract No. 1-DC-5-2103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehiste, I. and G. E. Peterson. 1959. Vowel amplitude and phonemic stress in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 31: 428–435.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Lehiste, I. and G. E. Peterson. 1961. Transitions, glides and diphthongs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 33: 268–277.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, A. M., P. C. Delattre and F. S. Cooper. 1958. Some cues for the distinction between voiced and voiceless stops in initial position. Language and Speech 1: 153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, A. M., P. C. Delattre, F. S. Cooper and L. J. Gerstman. 1954. The role of consonant-vowel transitions in the perception of the stop and nasal consonants. Psychological Monographs 8: 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, A. M., P. C. Delattre, L. J. Gerstman. and F. S. Cooper. 1956. Tempo of frequency change as a cue for distinguishing classes of speech sounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology 52: 127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, A. M., K. S. Harris, H. S. Hoffman and B. C. Griffith. 1957. The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology 54: 358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Licklider, J. C. R. 1948. The influence of interaural phase upon the masking of speech by white noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 20: 150–159.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, B. E. F. and M. Studdert-Kennedy. 1967. On the role of formant transitions in vowel recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 42: 830–843.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Lisker, L. and A. S. Abramson. 1967. Some effects of context on voice onset time in English stops. Language and Speech 10: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litovsky, R. Y and H. S. Colburn. 1999. The precedence effect. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106: 1633–1654.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • MacKeith, N. W. and R. R. Coles. 1971. Binaural advantages in hearing of speech. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 85: 213–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. F. A., P. J. Blamey, C. James, K. L. Galvin and D. MacFarlane. 2000a. Adaptive range of optimisation for hearing aids. In: Barlow, M., ed. Proceedings of the Eighth Australian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology. Canberra, Australian Speech Science and Technology Association: 373–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. F. A., C. James, P. J. Blamey, et al. 2000b. Adaptive dynamic range optimisation for cochlear implants. Australian Journal of Audiology 22(suppl): 64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. F. A., C. James, P. J. Blamey, B. Swanson, Y. Just and D. S. MacFarlane. 1999. Adaptive dynamic range optimisation; pre-processing for cochlear implants. 1999 Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses, Asilomar Conference Center, California: 127.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, H. J., C. M. McKay and A. Vandali. 1992. A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multi-electrode cochlear implant. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91: 3367–3371.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • McKay, C. M. and H. J. McDermott. 1993. Perceptual performance of subjects with cochlear implants using the spectral maxima sound processor (SMSP) and the mini speech processor (MSP). Ear and Hearing 14: 350–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKay, C. M., H. J. McDermott and G. M. Clark. 1991. Preliminary results with a six spectral maxima speech processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus multiple electrode cochlear implant. Journal of the Oto-Laryngological Society of Australia 6: 354–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay, C. M., H. J. McDermott and G. M. Clark. 1993. Temporal pitch coding for cochlear implantees: the effects of carrier rate and amplitude-modulation of pulsatile electrical stimuli. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 93: 2333.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • McKay, C. M., H. J. McDermott and G. M. Clark. 1994. The beneficial use of channel interactions for the improvement of speech perception for multichannel cochlear implants. Australian Journal of Audiology 15(2 suppl): 20–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay, C. M., H. J. McDermott, A. Vandali and G. M. Clark. 1992. A comparison of speech perception of cochlear implantees using the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor (SMSP) and the MSP (Multipeak) processor. Acta Oto-Laryngologica 112: 752–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merzenich, M., C. Byers and M. White. 1984. Scala tympani electrode arrays. Fifth quarterly progress report. NIH contract NO1-NS9-2353: 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. and P. E. Nicely. 1955. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27(3): 338–352.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Muller-Deile, J., B. J. Schmidt and H. Rudert. 1995. Effects of noise on speech discrimination in cochlear implant patients. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 104: 303–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, M., S. D. Soli and J. A. Sullivan. 1994. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 95: 1085–1099.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Nordmark, J. O. 1968. Mechanisms of frequency discrimination. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 44(6): 1532–1540.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, J. D., L. J. Gerstman, A. M. Liberman, P. C. Delattre and F. S. Cooper. 1957. Acoustic cues for the perception of initial /w,j.r.l/ in English. Word 13: 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Shaughnessy, D. 1987. Speech communication: human and machine. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paolini, A. G. and G. M. Clark. 1997. The effect of pulsatile intracochlear electrical stimulation on intracellularly recorded cochlear nucleus neurons. In: Clark, G. M., ed. Cochlear implants. XVI World Congress of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery. Bologna, Monduzzi Editore: 119–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, A. J., R. S. Tyler, G. G. Woodworth, M. W Lowder and B. J. Gantz. 1996. A within-subject comparison of adult patients using the Nucleus F0F1F2 and F0F1F2B3B4B5 speech processing strategies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 39: 261–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlovic, C. V., G. A. Studebaker and R. L. Sherbecoe. 1986. An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 80: 50–57.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Peissig, J. and B. Kollmeier. 1997. Directivity of binaural noise reduction in spatial multiple noise-source arrangements for normal hearing and impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105: 1660–1670.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Pelizzone, M., A. Kasper and P. Montandon. 1990. Binaural interaction in a cochlear implant patient. Hearing Research 48: 287–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, G. E. and H. L. Barney. 1952. Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 24: 175–184.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, P. M., S. M. Wei, W. M. Rabinowitz and P. M. Zurek. 1990. Robustness of an adaptive beamforming method for hearing aids. Acta Otolaryngology-supplement 469: 85–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, J. M. 1980. The sounds of speech communication. A primer of acoustic phonetics and speech perception. Baltimore, University Park Press: 194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plomp, R. 1975. Auditory psychophysics. Annual Review of Psychology 26: 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plomp, R. 1976. Aspects of tone sensation: a psychophysical study. London, Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, I. and J. M. Pickett. 1958. Stereophonic listening and speech intelligibility against voice babble. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 30: 131–133.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Pols, L. C. W., L. J. T. Van Der Kamp and R. Plomp. 1969. Perceptual and physical space of vowel sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 46: 458–467.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Rabiner, L. R. and R. W. Schafer. 1978. Digital processing of speech signals. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remez, R. E., P. E. Rubin and D. B. Pisoni. 1981. Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science 212: 947–949.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, J. E., J. F. Brugge, D. J. Anderson and J. E. Hind. 1967. Phase-locked response to low-frequency tones in single auditory nerve fibers of the squirrel monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology 30: 769–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, J. E., J. F. Brugge, D. J. Anderson and J. E. Hind. 1969. Time structure of discharges in single auditory nerve fibers of the squirrel monkey in response to complex periodic sounds. Journal of Neurophysiology 32: 386–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, S. 1989. Temporal information in speech and its relevance for cochlear implants. In: Fraysse, B. and N. Cochard, eds. Cochlear implant: acquisitions and controversies. International Symposium, Toulouse: 3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sammeth, C. A., M. F. Dorman and C. J. Stearns. 1999. The role of consonant-vowel intensity ratio in the recognition of voiceless stop consonants by listeners with hearing impairment. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 42: 42–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schindler, R. A., D. K. Kessler and M. A. Barker. 1995. Clarion patient performance: an update on the clinical trials. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 104: 269–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, M. R. 1968. Reference signal for signal quality studies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 44: 1735–1736.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, M. R. and E. E. David. 1960. A vocoder for transmitting 10kc/s speech over a 3.5 kc/s channel. Acustica 10: 35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, P. M. and H. J. McDermott. 1995. Architecture of the SPECTRA 22 speech processor. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 104(suppl 166): 139–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, R. V., A. Jensvold, M. Padilla, M. E. Robert and X. Wang. 1999. Consonant recordings for speech testing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106: L71–L74.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, R. V., F.-G. Zeng, V. Kamath, J. Wygonski and M. Ekelid. 1995. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270: 303–304.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, R. V., F.-G. Zeng and J. Wygonski. 1998. Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 104: 2467–2476.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S. 1968. A distinctive feature analysis of responses to a multiple choice intelligibility test. International Review of Applied Linguistics 6: 37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, M. W., G. M. Clark, L. A. Whitford, et al. 1994. Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 channels cochlear implant system. American Journal of Otology 15: 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, M. W., L. K. Holden, T. A. Holden, M. E. Demorest and M. S. Fourakis. 1997. Speech recognition as simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101: 3766–3782.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, M. W., L. K. Holden, T. A. Holden, et al. 1991. Performance of postlinguistically deaf adults with the Wearable Speech Processor (WSP III) and Mini Speech Processor (MSP) of the Nucleus multi-electrode cochlear implant. Ear and Hearing 12: 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, M. W., L. K. Holden, L. A. Whitford, K. L. Plant, C. Psarros and T. A. Holden. 2002. In press. Speech recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, Ace, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults. Ear and Hearing 23: 207–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, M. W., M. M. Karstaedt and J. D. Miller. 1982. Amplification bandwidth and speech intelligibility for two listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Audiology 21: 251–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soede, W., A. J. Berkhout and F. A. Bilson. 1993. Development of a directional hearing instrument based on array technology. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 94: 785–798.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, K. N. and S. E. Blumstein. 1981. The search for invariant acoustic correlates of phonetic features. In: Einnas, P. D. and J. L. Miller, eds. Perspectives on the study of speech. Hillsdale NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum: 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strevens, P. 1960. Spectra of fricative noise in human speech. Language and Speech 3: 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summerfield, A. Q. and M. P. Haggard. 1972. Speech rate effects in the perception of voicing. Speech Synthesis and Perception 6: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Throckmorton, C. S. and L. M. Collins. 1999. Investigation of the effects of temporal and spatial interactions on speech-recognition skills in cochlear-implant subjects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105: 861–873.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Tong, Y. C., R. C. Black, G. M. Clark, et al. 1979. A preliminary report on a multiple-channel cochlear implant operation. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 93: 679–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tong, Y. C., P. J. Blamey, R. C. Dowell and G. M. Clark. 1983a. Psychophysical studies evaluating the feasibility of a speech processing strategy for a multiple-channel cochlear implant. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 74: 73–80.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Tong, Y C, G. M. Clark, P. M. Seligman and J. F. Patrick. 1980. Speech processing for a multiple-electrode cochlear implant hearing prosthesis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 68: 1897–1899.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Tong, Y C, R. C. Dowell, P. J. Blamey and G. M. Clark. 1983b. Two-component hearing sensations produced by two-electrode stimulation in the cochlea of a deaf patient. Science 219: 993–994.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Tong, Y. C., W. K. Lai, M. Denison, et al. 1989. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Third quarterly progress report. NIH No. 1-DC-9-2400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tong, Y. C., R. van Hoesel, W. K. Lai, A. Vandali, J. M. Harrison and G. M. Clark. 1990. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Sixth quarterly progress report. NIH Contract No. 1-DC-9-2400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tong, Y. C., A. Vandali, J. M. Harrison, R. van Hoesel, J. S. Chang and G. M. Clark. 1991. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Eighth quarterly progress report. NIH Contract No. 1-DC-9-2400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, C. W., P. E. Souza and L. N. Forget. 1995. Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97: 2568–2576.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Tye-Murray, N., R. S. Tyler, G. G. Woodworth and B. J. Gantz. 1992. Performance over time with a Nucleus or Ineraid cochlear implant. Ear and Hearing 13: 200–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. S. and M. W. Lowder. 1992. Audiological management and performance of adult cochlear-implant patients. Ear, Nose and Throat Journal 71: 117–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. S., B. C. J. Moore and F. K. Kuk. 1989. Performance of some of the better cochlear-implant patients. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 32: 887–911.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hoesel, R., R. Ramsden and M. O’Driscoll. 2002. Sound-direction identification, interaural time delay discrimination and speech intelligibility advantages in noise for a bilateral cochlear implant user. Ear and Hearing 23(2): 137–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hoesel, R. and R. Tyler. Submitted. Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implant users. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hoesel, R. J. M. and G. M. Clark. 1993. Cochlear implant-bilateral psychophysical, speech and processing studies. Human Communications Research Centre 6th Annual Report: 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hoesel, R. J. M. and G. M. Clark. 1995a. Evaluation of a portable two-microphone adaptive beamforming speech processor with cochlear implant patients. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97: 2498–2503.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • van Hoesel, R. J. M. and G. M. Clark. 1995b. Fusion and lateralization study with two binaural cochlear implant patients. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 104(suppl 166): 233–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hoesel, R. J. M. and G. M. Clark. 1997. Psychophysical studies with two binaural cochlear implant subjects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102: 495–507.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • van Hoesel, R. J. M. and G. M. Clark. 1999. Speech results with a bilateral multi-channel cochlear implant subject for spatially separated signal and noise. Australian Journal of Audiology 21: 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hoesel, R. J. M., Y. C. Tong, R. D. Hollow and G. M. Clark. 1993. Psychophysical and speech perception studies: a case report on a binaural cochlear implant subject. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 94: 3178–3189.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • van Hoesel, R. J. M., Y C. Tong, R. D. Hollow, J. Huigen and G. M. Clark. 1990. Preliminary studies on a bilateral cochlear implant user. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88(suppl 1): S193.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Tasell, D. J., D. G. Greenfield, J. J. Logemann and D. A. Nelson. 1992. Temporal cues for consonant recognition: training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 92: 1247–1257.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Van Tasell, D. J., S. D. Soli and V. M. Kirby. 1987. Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 82(4): 1152–1161.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Vandali, A. E. 2001. Emphasis of short-duration acoustic speech cues for cochlear implant users. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109: 2049–2061.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Vandali, A. E., J. M. Harrison, J. Huigen, K. Plant and G. M. Clark. 1995. Multichannel cochlear implant speech processing: further variations of the Spectral Maxima sound processor strategy. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 104(suppl 166):378–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandali, A. E., L. A. Whitford, K. L. Plant and G. M. Clark. 2000. Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear and Hearing 21: 608–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, W. S.-Y. 1959. Transition and release as perceptual cues for final plosives. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 2: 66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. S. 1997. The future of cochlear implants. British Journal of Audiology 31: 205–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. S. 2000. Strategies for representing speech information with cochlear implants. In: Niparko, J. K., ed. Cochlear implants: principles and practice. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. S., C. C. Finley, J. C. Farmer, et al. 1988. Comparative studies of speech processing strategies for cochlear implants. Laryngoscope 98: 1069–1077.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. S., D. T. Lawson, M. Zerbi and C. C. Finley. 1992. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Twelfth quarterly progress report, April. 1992. NIH contract No. 1-DC-9-2401. Research Triangle Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. S., D. T. Lawson, M. Zerbi and C. C. Finley. 1993. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Fifth quarterly progress report, Oct. 1993. NIH contract No. 1-DC-2-2401. Research Triangle Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, S., R. C. Dowell and G. M. Clark. 1987. Results for Chinese and English in a multichannel cochlear implant patient. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 96(suppl 128): 126–127.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology and The Bionic Ear Institute, The University of Melbourne, 348-388 Albert Street, East Melbourne, Victoria, 3002, Australia

    Graeme Clark

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2003). Speech (Sound) Processing. In: Clark, G. (eds) Cochlear Implants. Modern Acoustics and Signal Processing. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-21550-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-21550-6_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-95583-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-21550-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation