Psychophysical Data from Cochlear Implants: Relevance to Strategies for Rehabilitation

Pfingst, Bryan E.

doi:10.1055/s-0028-1091989

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Atal ( In the design of their prostheses, each research center applies different speech processing strategies to transform the redundant speech signal into simpler coded signals that can be relayed to the comparatively crude electrode interfacing the nerve fibers (Millar et al, 1984). Pfingst (1985 explained that the speech waveform must be simplified and reduced.…”

Section: Processor Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One type employs a feature extraction approach which provides "pulse trains" (pulsatile stimuli) that vary in rate, width, and amplitude to correspond to various features of the input signal (Mecklenburg & Brimacombe, 1985;Pfingst, 1985;Staller, 1985). Only the features deemed important·in speech perception are extracted and coded.…”

Section: Processor Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This strategy uses analog waveforms (direct electrical representation) of the speech signal that have been filtered, compressed, and adjusted in relative amplitude (Pfingst, 1985;Staller, 1985).…”

Section: Processor Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A third strategy (the House device) amplifies the speech signal and uses a bandpass between 350-Hz and 2.SK-Hz, then "uses a 16K-Hz sinusoidal carrier that is amplitude modulated in relation to analog environmental sounds" (Pfingst, 1985). As Mecklenburg and Brimacombe (1984) explained it:…”

Section: Processor Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kirk and Edgerton (1983) (Millar et al, 1984). The variability in rehabilitation success across all implant systems is great, making comparison and prediction difficult (Loeb, 1985;Pfingst, 1985). A few "star" patients demonstrate ability to perceive connected speech without the aid of lipreading; the vast majority of implant users benefit to a lesser degree (Miller & Pfingst, 1984).…”

Section: Effect Of Cochlear Implant Use Upon Speech Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Some effects of cochlear implant use on loudness modulation

Ross¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Processor Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Processor Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Processor Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Processor Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effect Of Cochlear Implant Use Upon Speech Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Some effects of cochlear implant use on loudness modulation

Ross¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Representations of Speech Features with Cochlear Implants

Wilson¹,

Finley²,

Lawson³

1990

Cochlear Implants

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of level on nonspectral frequency difference limens for electrical and acoustic stimuli

Pfingst

Daniel

1990

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this experiment was to study the effects of stimulus level on discrimination of frequency as represented in the temporal waveforms of acoustic and electrical signals. The subjects were four nonhuman primates in which one ear had been deafened and implanted with an electrode array and the other ear was untreated. Frequency difference limens for 100 Hz electrical sinusoidal stimulation via a cochlear implant in the deafened ear were compared to those for 100 Hz sinusoidally amplitude-modulated white noise (SAM noise) acoustic stimuli to the normal-hearing contralateral ear. To correct for loudness cues, levels of the test stimuli were varied relative to the reference-stimulus level. The test-stimulus levels at which the percent responses were minimum were determined. These levels were used to measure the frequency difference limens. Frequency difference limens for the electrical stimuli decreased as a function of reference-stimulus level through most of the dynamic range, while those for the acoustic stimuli reached a minimum at 20 dB to 40 dB above threshold. For the electrical stimuli the slopes and relative positions of the frequency difference limen vs. level functions varied from subject to subject, and with changes in electrode configuration within a subject. These differences were related to threshold level and dynamic range. At higher levels of stimulation, frequency difference limens for acoustic and electrical stimuli fell in the same range. The slopes and relative positions of the frequency difference limen vs. level functions for electrical stimuli did not parallel those of level difference limen vs. level functions collected simultaneously from the same ears. The data suggest that nonspectral frequency discrimination may depend on the number of nerve fibers stimulated. With prostheses in cochleas with less than a full complement of auditory nerve fibers, the data suggest that stimulation level is an important variable influencing discriminability.

show abstract

Psychophysical Data from Cochlear Implants: Relevance to Strategies for Rehabilitation

Cited by 8 publications

References 33 publications

Some effects of cochlear implant use on loudness modulation

Some effects of cochlear implant use on loudness modulation

Representations of Speech Features with Cochlear Implants

Effects of level on nonspectral frequency difference limens for electrical and acoustic stimuli

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About