Graeme Clark Collection

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/375

Filters

1993 - 1994 3
Reset filters

Settings
Statistics
Citations
Author: Seligman, Peter × End date: 1994 × Start date: 1990 × Type: Journal Article × Subject: cochlear implant ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Evaluation of a new Spectral Peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 channel cochlear implant system
    Skinner, Margaret W. ; Clark, Graeme M. ; Whitford, Lesley A. ; Seligman, Peter M. ; Staller, Steven J. ; Shipp, David B. ; Shallop, Jon K. ; Everingham, Colleen ; Menapace, Christine M. ; Arndt, Patti L. ; Antogenelli, Trisha ; Brimacombe, Judith A. ; Pijl, Sipke ; Daniels, Paulette ; George, Catherine R. ; McDermott, Hugh J. ; Beiter, Anne L. ( 1994)
    Sixty-three postlinguistically deaf adults from four English-speaking countries participated in a 17-week field study of performance with a new speech coding strategy, Spectral Peak (SPEAK), and the most widely used strategy, Multipeak (MPEAK), both of which are implemented on wearable speech processors of the Nucleus 22 Channel Cochlear Implant System; MPEAK is a feature-extraction strategy, whereas SPEAK is a filterbank strategy. Subjects' performance was evaluated with an experimental design in which use of each strategy was reversed and replicated (ABAB). Average scores for speech tests presented sound-only at 70 dB SPL were higher with the SPEAK strategy than with the MPEAK strategy. For tests in quiet, mean scores for medial vowels were 74.8 percent versus 70.1 percent; for medial consonants, 68.6 percent versus 56.6 percent; for monosyllabic words, 33.8 percent versus 24.6 percent; and for sentences, 77.5 percent versus 67.4 percent. For tests in noise, mean scores for Four-Choice Spondees at +10 and +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) were 88.5 percent versus 73.6 percent and 80.1 percent versus 62.3 percent, respectively; and for sentences at +15 dB, +10, and +5 dB S/N, 66.5 percent versus 43.4 percent, 61.5 percent versus 37.1 percent, and 60.4 percent versus 31.7 percent, respectively. Subjects showed marked improvement in recognition of sentences in noise with the new SPEAK filterbank strategy. These results agree closely with subjects' responses to a questionnaire on which approximately 80 percent reported they heard best with the SPEAK strategy for everyday listening situations.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Formant-based processing for hearing aids
    Blamey, P. J. ; Dooley, G. J. ; Seligman, P. M. ; Alcantara, J. I. ; Gerin, E. S. ( 1994)
    A body-worn hearing aid has been developed with the ability to estimate formant frequencies and amplitudes in real time. These parameters can be used to enhance the output signal by "sharpening" the formant peaks, by "mapping" the amplitudes of the formants onto the available dynamic range of hearing at each frequency, or by resynthesizing a speech signal that is suited to the listener�s hearing characteristics. Initial evaluations have indicated small improvements in speech perception for three groups of subjects: users of a combined cochlear implant and speech processing hearing aid, normally hearing listeners in background noise, and a hearing aid user with a severe hearing loss.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Combined electrical and acoustical stimulation using a bimodal prosthesis
    Dooley, Gary J. ; Blamey, Peter J. ; Seligman, Peter M. ; Alcantara, Joseph I. ; Clark, Graeme M. ; Shallop, Jon K. ; Arndt, Patti ; Heller, James W. ; Menapace, Christine M. ( 1993)
    A new device incorporating a cochlear implant speech processor and a speech-processing hearing aid for the un-implanted ear has been designed and tested with four severely hearing-impaired patients. The aim of the device is to provide a more acceptable and effective combination of electrical and acoustic signals to the two ears. When used monaurally, and binaurally in conjunction with the cochlear implant, the speech-processing hearing aid mean scores for open-set sentences, words, and consonants were as good as or better than the mean scores for the patients' own conventional hearing aids. Some patients improved much more than did others. Although not conclusive, these results are encouraging, especially as they were achieved with a laboratory prototype that did not allow the patients to become accustomed to the processor in everyday situations.