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.
oa
Evaluation of adaptive dynamic range optimization in adverse listening conditions for cochlear implants
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
/content/asa/journal/jasa/136/3/10.1121/1.4893334
1.
1.American National Standards Institute. (2002). ANSI S12.60. 2002. Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements and Guidelines for Schools ( ANSI, New York).
2.
2. Blamey, P. J. (2005). “ Adaptive Dynamic Rango Optimization (ADRO): A digital amplification strategy for hearing aids and cochlear implants,” Trends Amp. 9(2), 7798.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/108471380500900203
3.
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.
4.
4. Dawson, P. W. , Decker, J. A. , and Psarros, C. E. (2004). “ Optimizing dynamic range in children using the Nucleus cochlear implants,” Ear Hear. 25(3), 230241.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AUD.0000130795.66185.28
5.
5. Fu, Q. J. , and Shannon, R. V. (2000). “ Effects of dynamic range and amplitude mapping on phoneme recognition in nucleus-22 cochlear implant users,” Ear Hear. 21(3), 227235.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200006000-00006
6.
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.
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), 437443.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2012.658972
8.
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), 164174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200004000-00010
9.
9.IEEE (1969). “ IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements,” IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. AU-17, 225246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TAU.1969.1162058
10.
10. Iwaki, T. , Blamey, P. , and Kubo, T. (2008). “ Bimodal studies using adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO) technology,” Int. J. Audiol. 47(6), 311318.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992020802130848
11.
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), 49S58S.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200202001-00006
12.
12. Loizou, P. C. , Dorman, M. , and Fitzke, J. (2000). “ The effect of reduced dynamic range on speech understanding: Implications for patients with cochlear implants,” Ear Hear. 21(1), 2531.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200002000-00006
13.
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, 2124.
14.
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), 12591265.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.398740
15.
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), 608624.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200012000-00008
16.
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, 236238.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/352236a0
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/136/3/10.1121/1.4893334
Loading
/content/asa/journal/jasa/136/3/10.1121/1.4893334
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/136/3/10.1121/1.4893334
2014-08-18
2014-09-16

Abstract

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.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/asa/journal/jasa/136/3/1.4893334.html;jsessionid=21dfdnphdmfua.x-aip-live-03?itemId=/content/asa/journal/jasa/136/3/10.1121/1.4893334&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/asa/journal/jasa
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
This feature is disabled while Scitation upgrades its access control system.
This feature is disabled while Scitation upgrades its access control system.
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Evaluation of adaptive dynamic range optimization in adverse listening conditions for cochlear implants
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/136/3/10.1121/1.4893334
10.1121/1.4893334
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM