1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Assessing the role of spectral and intensity cues in spectral ripple detection and discrimination in cochlear-implant users
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1121/1.4763999
/content/asa/journal/jasa/132/6/10.1121/1.4763999
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/132/6/10.1121/1.4763999

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Spectral modulation transfer functions (SMTFs) for 15 CI subjects. Ripple detection threshold (in dB) for each of seven different spectral ripple frequencies (0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0 rpo) is depicted.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

SMTFs for Clarion-I, Clarion-II, and Nucleus subjects (top, middle, and lower panels, respectively) over an extended range of spectral ripple rates. The dotted horizontal lines correspond to a ripple detection threshold of 30 dB.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Interpolated ripple frequency (in rpo) for ripple detection threshold, or spectral modulation threshold (SMT) = 30 dB, as a function of spectral ripple discrimination threshold (rpo).

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

RAU scores for sentence recognition (A) and vowel recognition (B) as a function of average SMT for 0.25 and 0.5 rpo. (C), (D) SNR50% for sentences and vowels, respectively, as a function of the average of ripple detection thresholds at 0.25 and 0.5 rpo.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Individual SMTF (ripple detection threshold as a function of spectral ripple frequency) for subject D10. The vertical line indicates the spectral ripple discrimination threshold for this listener.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

SMTFs for three normal-hearing subjects. Ripple detection thresholds (in dB) for each of 15 different spectral ripple frequencies (0.25–60 rpo) is displayed. Spectral ripple discrimination thresholds are indicated by vertical lines.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Intensity difference limens (ΔL) for each subject. Error bars represent 1 s.d.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Individual subject and device characteristics. Gender, age when tested, duration of implant use prior to the study, etiology of deafness, duration of bilateral, severe-to-profound hearing loss prior to implantation, implanted device, and sound processing strategy. The processing strategies include Continuous Interleaved Sampling (CIS), Multiple Pulsatile Stimulation (MPS), HiResolution-Paired (HiRes-P) and Sequential (HiRes-S), and Spectral Peak (SPEAK).

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Correlations and corresponding p values (with no post-hoc Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons) for three summary measures of ripple detection (the average threshold at ripple rates of 0.25 and 0.5 rpo, the average threshold at ripple rates of 2 and 3 rpo, and the interpolated ripple rate at which the threshold peak-to-valley ratio was 30 dB), and speech recognition measures.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/132/6/10.1121/1.4763999
2012-12-06
2014-04-21
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Assessing the role of spectral and intensity cues in spectral ripple detection and discrimination in cochlear-implant users
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/132/6/10.1121/1.4763999
10.1121/1.4763999
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM