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.
Evaluation of adaptive dynamic range optimization in adverse listening conditions for cochlear implants
1.American National Standards Institute. (2002). ANSI S12.60. 2002. Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements and Guidelines for Schools ( ANSI, New York).
3. Blamey, P. J. , James, C. J. , Martin, L. , McDermott, H. J. , and Wildi, K. (1999). “ Adaptive dynamic range optimization sound processor,” International Patent Application PCT/ AU99/00076, U.S. Patent Application 09/478,022.
6. Hazrati, O. (2012). “ Development of dereverberation algorithms for improved speech intelligibility by cochlear implant users,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Dallas, TX.
7. Hazrati, O. , and Loizou, P. C. (2012). “ The combined effect of reverberation and noise on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners,” Int. J. Audiol. 51(6), 437–443.
8. Hughes, M. L. , Brown, C. J. , Abbas, P. J. , Wolaver, A. A. , and Gervais, J. P. (2000). “ Comparison of EAP thresholds with MAP levels in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant: Data from children,” Ear Hear. 21(2), 164–174.
11. James, C. J. , Blamey, P. J. , Martin, L. , Swanson, B. , Just, Y. , and Macfarlane, D. (2002). “ Adaptive Dynamic Range Optimization for cochlear implants: A preliminary study,” Ear Hear. 23(1S), 49S–58S.
13. Martin, L. F. A. , Blamey, P. J. , James, C. J. , Galvin, K. L. , and Macfarlane, D. (2001). “ Adaptive dynamic range optimization for hearing aids,” Acoust. Australia 29, 21–24.
14. Nabelek, A. K. , Letowski, T. R. , and Tucker, F. M. (1989). “ Reverberant overlap- and self-masking in consonant identification,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 86(4), 1259–1265.
15. Vandali, A. E. , Whitford, L. A. , Plant, K. L. , and Clark, G. M. (2000). “ Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system,” Ear Hear. 21(6), 608–624.
16. Wilson, B. S. , Finley, C. C. , Lawson, D. T. , Wolford, R. D. , Eddington, D. K. , and Rabinowitz, W. M. (1991). “ Better speech recognition with cochlear implants,” Nature 352, 236–238.
Article metrics loading...
The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of Adaptive Dynamic Range Optimization (ADRO) on speech identification for cochlear implant (CI) users in adverse listening conditions. In this study, anechoic quiet, noisy, reverberant, noisy reverberant, and reverberant noisy conditions are evaluated. Two scenarios are considered when modeling the combined effects of reverberation and noise: (a) noise is added to the reverberant speech, and (b) noisy speech is reverberated. CI users were tested in different listening environments using IEEE sentences presented at 65 dB sound pressure level. No significant effect of ADRO processing on speech intelligibility was observed.
Full text loading...
Most read this month