JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.29 282-287 June 1986.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tyler, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by Lansing, C. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tyler, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by Lansing, C. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Previous Experience as a Confounding Factor in Comparing Cochlear-Implant Processing Schemes

Richard S. Tyler 1
John P. Preece 1
Bruce J. Gantz 1
Steven R. Otto 1

Charissa R. Lansing 1
1 The University of Iowa, Iowa City

It is of great importance to compare the relative merits of different cochlear-implant speech-processing strategies. Some groups have compared different strategies within single subjects, but usually the subject has prior experience with one strategy, and no allowance is made for this prior experience. We show in the present study that this is inappropriate. We tested one subject using the Melbourne (Cochlear Corp.) multichannel implant with the device set to process sounds in two different ways. In the first processing scheme, the device functioned normally, extracting information about voicing frequency, amplitude and second-formant frequency. This information activated the 21-channel device, determining pulse rate, pulse amplitude and electrode position (respectively). In the second processing scheme, a single electrode (with the largest dynamic range) was activated. This electrode coded overall amplitude and voicing frequency. The subject was tested on an audiovisual test of a 14-choice consonant recognition in the form/iCi/ over a period of over 4 months. During this time the subject used the 21-channel processor outside of the laboratory. Upon initial connection, there was little difference between the results obtained with the two schemes when tested in sound alone or in sound plus vision. However, after about 4 months, scores obtained with the 21-channel processor in sound plus vigion were superior to the scores obtained with the one channel. This advantage came from a superiority in the features of voicing and nasality, but not place. Scores for sound-alone conditions between the two processing schemes remained similar for the 4-month period. Studies investigating the relative merits of speech processing systems (including tactile and conventional hearing aids) must consider previous experience as an important factor.

Submitted on July 8, 1985
Accepted on January 28, 1986


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1986 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.