Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

Previous experience as a confounding factor in comparing cochlear-implant processing schemes.

R S Tyler, J P Preece, C R Lansing

Journal of Speech and Hearing Research

|June 1, 1986

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Some applications of mathematics in golf.

Proceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences·2017

Same author

Recent Advances in Tinnitus.

American journal of audiology·2015

Same author

Cochlear Implants and the Deaf Culture.

American journal of audiology·2015

Same author

Response to Pool and Rose.

American journal of audiology·2015

Same author

RE: Pugsley et al. (1993). Changes in hearing sensitivity following portable stereo system use. AJA, 2(3), 64-67.

American journal of audiology·2015

Same author

Plasticity in human pitch perception induced by tonotopically mismatched electro-acoustic stimulation.

Neuroscience·2013

Same journal

Temporal resolution in infancy and subsequent language development.

Journal of speech and hearing research·1996

Same journal

Evidence of sensitivity to structural contrasts in the literature on children's language comprehension.

Journal of speech and hearing research·1996

Same journal

Narrative development in late talkers: early school age.

Journal of speech and hearing research·1996

Same journal

A system for the diagnosis of specific language impairment in kindergarten children.

Journal of speech and hearing research·1996

Same journal

Interactive focused stimulation for toddlers with expressive vocabulary delays.

Journal of speech and hearing research·1996

Same journal

Auditory lexical decisions of children with specific language impairment.

Journal of speech and hearing research·1996

See all related articles

Comparing cochlear implant strategies requires accounting for user experience. Over time, a 21-channel processor improved consonant recognition more than a single-channel one, especially with visual cues.

Area of Science:

Audiology
Biomedical Engineering
Speech Processing

Background:

Comparing cochlear implant speech-processing strategies is crucial.
Prior subject experience with a strategy can bias results, necessitating careful study design.
This study investigates two processing schemes in a multichannel cochlear implant.

Observation:

One subject used a 21-channel processor and a single-electrode processor for over 4 months.
The 21-channel processor extracted voicing frequency, amplitude, and second-formant frequency.
The single-electrode processor coded overall amplitude and voicing frequency.

Findings:

Initially, both strategies yielded similar consonant recognition scores (audiovisual and auditory alone).
After 4 months, the 21-channel processor significantly outperformed the single-electrode strategy in audiovisual conditions.

Related Experiment Videos

The advantage was attributed to improved recognition of voicing and nasality, not place information.

Implications:

Long-term use of multichannel cochlear implants enhances speech perception.
Study designs comparing cochlear implant strategies must consider adaptation and learning effects.
Multichannel processing offers superior speech information coding for improved auditory and audiovisual recognition.