The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants
Abstract
Speech recognition was measured as a function of spectral resolution (number of spectral channels) and speech-to-noise ratio in normal-hearing (NH) and cochlear-implant (CI) listeners. Vowel, consonant, word, and sentence recognition were measured in five normal-hearing listeners, ten listeners with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant, and nine listeners with the Advanced Bionics Clarion cochlear implant. Recognition was measured as a function of the number of spectral channels (noise bands or electrodes) at signal-to-noise ratios of +15, +10, +5, 0 dB, and in quiet. Performance with three different speech processing strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and SAS) was similar across all conditions, and improved as the number of electrodes increased (up to seven or eight) for all conditions. For all noise levels, vowel and consonant recognition with the SPEAK speech processor did not improve with more than seven electrodes, while for normal-hearing listeners, performance continued to increase up to at least 20 channels. Speech recognition on more difficult speech materials (word and sentence recognition) showed a marginally significant increase in Nucleus-22 listeners from seven to ten electrodes. The average implant score on all processing strategies was poorer than scores of NH listeners with similar processing. However, the best CI scores were similar to the normal-hearing scores for that condition (up to seven channels). CI listeners with the highest performance level increased in performance as the number of electrodes increased up to seven, while CI listeners with low levels of speech recognition did not increase in performance as the number of electrodes was increased beyond four. These results quantify the effect of number of spectral channels on speech recognition in noise and demonstrate that most CI subjects are not able to fully utilize the spectral information provided by the number of electrodes used in their implant.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues
Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F.-G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.270.5234.303 · Cited by 3,024
Self-citationNilsson, M., Soli, S. D., & Sullivan, J. A. (1994) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.408469 · Cited by 2,078
Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels
Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., & Wheeler, K. (1995) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.411872 · Cited by 2,072
A cochlear frequency-position function for several species—29 years later
Greenwood, D. D. (1990) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.399052 · Cited by 1,890
An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants
Miller, G. A., & Nicely, P. E. (1955) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1907526 · Cited by 1,869
Better speech recognition with cochlear implants
Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., Lawson, D. T., Wolford, R. D., Eddington, D. K., & Rabinowitz, W. M. (1991) · Nature · doi:10.1038/352236a0 · Cited by 1,190
Dorman, M. F., Loizou, P. C., & Rainey, D. (1997) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.419603 · Cited by 410
Fishman, K. E., Shannon, R. V., & Slattery, W. H. (1997) · Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/jslhr.4005.1201 · Cited by 380
Self-citationFu, Q., Shannon, R. V., & Wang, X. (1998) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.423941 · Cited by 345
Self-citationRubinstein, J. T., Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., & Abbas, P. J. (1999) · Hearing Research · doi:10.1016/s0378-5955(98)00185-3 · Cited by 276
Cited by
Cochlear-implant spatial selectivity with monopolar, bipolar and tripolar stimulation
Zhu, Z., Tang, Q., Zeng, F.-G., Guan, T., & Ye, D. (2012) · Hearing Research · doi:10.1016/j.heares.2011.11.005 · Cited by 115
Optical Stimulation of Neurons
C. Thompson, A., R. Stoddart, P., & Jansen, E. D. (2015) · Current Molecular Imaging · doi:10.2174/2211555203666141117220611 · Cited by 105
“One current limitation of the implant is the spread of electrical current through the tissue and the perilymph, reducing the spatial selectivity that can be achieved with this stimulation modality [3].”
BackgroundYildiz, I. B., von Kriegstein, K., & Kiebel, S. J. (2013) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003219 · Cited by 55
Optical stimulation of neural tissue
Richardson, R. T., Ibbotson, M. R., Thompson, A. C., Wise, A. K., & Fallon, J. B. (2020) · Healthcare Technology Letters · doi:10.1049/htl.2019.0114 · Cited by 40
“average, 82% of sentences in quiet listening conditions [2].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Friesen, L. M., Shannon, R. V., Baskent, D., & Wang, X.
- Venue
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
- Publisher
- Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
- Published
- 2001-08-01
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1150-1163
- ISSN
- 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-8524
- OpenAlex
- W2089722856
- Cited by
- 1,049
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 7.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1121/1.1381538
- The paper
- Friesen, L. M., Shannon, R. V., Baskent, D., & Wang, X. (2001). Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1381538
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
