Skip to main content
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.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/6/10.1121/1.4879673
1.
1. K. Kokkinakis, O. Hazrati, and P. C. Loizou, “A channel-selection criterion for suppressing reverberation in cochlear implants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129(5), 32213232 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3559683
2.
2. K. Kokkinakis and P. C. Loizou, “Selective-tap blind dereverberation for two-microphone enhancement of reverberant speech,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 16(11), 961964 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/LSP.2009.2027658
3.
3. O. Hazrati and P. C. Loizou, “Tackling the combined effects of reverberation and masking noise using ideal channel selection,” J. Speech, Lang., Hear. Res. 55(2), 500510 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0073)
4.
4. O. Hazrati and P. C. Loizou, “Reverberation suppression in cochlear implants using a blind channel-selection strategy,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133(6), 41884196 (2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4804313
5.
5. O. Hazrati, S. O. Sadjadi, P. C. Loizou, and J. H. L. Hansen, “Simultaneous suppression of noise and reverberation in cochlear implants using a ratio masking strategy,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134(5), 37593765 (2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4823839
6.
6. R. H. Bolt and A. D. MacDonald, “Theory of speech masking by reverberation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 21(6), 577580 (1949).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1906551
7.
7. Y. Hu and K. Kokkinakis, “Effects of early and late reflections on intelligibility of reverberated speech by cochlear implant listeners,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 135(1), EL22EL28 (2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4834455
8.
8. A. E. Vandali, L. A. Whitford, K. L. Plant, and G. M. Clark, “Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: Using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system,” Ear Hear. 21(6), 608624 (2000).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200012000-00008
9.
9. O. Hazrati, J. Lee, and P. C. Loizou, “Blind binary masking for reverberation suppression in cochlear implants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133(3), 16071614 (2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4789891
10.
10. K. Kokkinakis and P. C. Loizou, “The impact of reverberant self-masking and overlap-masking effects on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130(3), 10991102 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3614539
11.
11. E. A. Lehmann and A. M. Johansson, “Prediction of energy decay in room impulse responses simulated with an image-source model,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124(1), 269277 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2936367
12.
12. B. Champagne, S. Bédard, and A. Stéphenne, “Performance of time-delay estimation in the presence of room reverberation,” IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 4(2), 148152 (1996).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/89.486067
13.
13. M. Nilsson, S. Soli, and J. A. Sullivan, “Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95(2), 10851099 (1994).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.408469
14.
14. H. Davis and S. R. Silverman, Hearing and Deafness, 4th ed. (Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston, New York, 1978), pp. 537538.
15.
15. S. L. Tantum, L. M. Collins, and C. S. Throckmorton, “Bayesian a posteriori performance estimation for speech recognition and psychophysical tasks,” URL http://www.ece.duke.edu/sites/ece.duke.edu/files/u23/Tantum_etal_BayesianPerformanceEvaluation.pdf (Last viewed October 2013).
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/6/10.1121/1.4879673
Loading
/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/6/10.1121/1.4879673
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/6/10.1121/1.4879673
2014-05-27
2016-09-29

Abstract

Many cochlear implant (CI) listeners experience decreased speech recognition in reverberant environments [Kokkinakis , J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (5), 3221–3232 (2011)], which may be caused by a combination of self- and overlap-masking [Bolt and MacDonald, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (6), 577–580 (1949)]. Determining the extent to which these effects decrease speech recognition for CI listeners may influence reverberation mitigation algorithms. This study compared speech recognition with ideal self-masking mitigation, with ideal overlap-masking mitigation, and with no mitigation. Under these conditions, mitigating either self- or overlap-masking resulted in significant improvements in speech recognition for both normal hearing subjects utilizing an acoustic model and for CI listeners using their own devices.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/asa/journal/jasa/135/6/1.4879673.html;jsessionid=Idu_ysS14cbpWvOKJ1q7tP82.x-aip-live-02?itemId=/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/6/10.1121/1.4879673&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/asa/journal/jasa
true
true

Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
/content/realmedia?fmt=ahah&adPositionList=
&advertTargetUrl=//oascentral.aip.org/RealMedia/ads/&sitePageValue=asadl.org/jasa/135/6/10.1121/1.4879673&pageURL=http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/6/10.1121/1.4879673'
Right1,Right2,Right3,