These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A comparison of three speech coding strategies using an acoustic model of a cochlear implant.
    Author: Blamey PJ, Martin LF, Clark GM.
    Journal: J Acoust Soc Am; 1985 Jan; 77(1):209-17. PubMed ID: 3838322.
    Abstract:
    Three alternative speech coding strategies suitable for use with cochlear implants were compared in a study of three normally hearing subjects using an acoustic model of a multiple-channel cochlear implant. The first strategy (F2) presented the amplitude envelope of the speech and the second formant frequency. The second strategy (F0 F2) included the voice fundamental frequency, and the third strategy (F0 F1 F2) presented the first formant frequency as well. Discourse level testing with the speech tracking method showed a clear superiority of the F0 F1 F2 strategy when the auditory information was used to supplement lipreading. Tracking rates averaged over three subjects for nine 10-min sessions were 40 wpm for F2, 52 wpm for F0 F2, and 66 wpm for F0 F1 F2. Vowel and consonant confusion studies and a test of prosodic information were carried out with auditory information only. The vowel test showed a significant difference between the strategies, but no differences were found for the other tests. It was concluded that the amplitude and duration cues common to all three strategies accounted for the levels of consonant and prosodic information received by the subjects, while the different tracking rates were a consequence of the better vowel recognition and the more natural quality of the F0 F1 F2 strategy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]