Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 363

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: Benefits of residual acoustic hearing

Turner, Christopher W., Gantz, Bruce J., Vidal, Corina, Behrens, Amy, Henry, Belinda A.·2004·The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the potential advantages, both theoretical and applied, of preserving low-frequency acoustic hearing in cochlear implant patients. Several hypotheses are presented that predict that residual low-frequency acoustic hearing along with electric stimulation for high frequencies will provide an advantage over traditional long-electrode cochlear implants for the recognition of speech in competing backgrounds. A simulation experiment in normal-hearing subjects demonstrated a clear advantage for preserving low-frequency residual acoustic hearing for speech recognition in a background of other talkers, but not in steady noise. Three subjects with an implanted “short-electrode” cochlear implant and preserved low-frequency acoustic hearing were also tested on speech recognition in the same competing backgrounds and compared to a larger group of traditional cochlear implant users. Each of the three short-electrode subjects performed better than any of the traditional long-electrode implant subjects for speech recognition in a background of other talkers, but not in steady noise, in general agreement with the simulation studies. When compared to a subgroup of traditional implant users matched according to speech recognition ability in quiet, the short-electrode patients showed a 9-dB advantage in the multitalker background. These experiments provide strong preliminary support for retaining residual low-frequency acoustic hearing in cochlear implant patients. The results are consistent with the idea that better perception of voice pitch, which can aid in separating voices in a background of other talkers, was responsible for this advantage.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1121/1.1687425

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 363

Metadata

Authors
Turner, C. W., Gantz, B. J., Vidal, C., Behrens, A., & Henry, B. A.
Venue
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Published
2004-03-24
Volume
115
Issue
4
Pages
1729-1735
ISSN
  • 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-8524
OpenAlex
W2016399083
Cited by
363
References
0
FWCI
8.32
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 for cochlear implant listeners: Benefits of residual acoustic hearing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1121/1.1687425
The paper
Turner, C. W., Gantz, B. J., Vidal, C., Behrens, A., & Henry, B. A. (2004). Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: Benefits of residual acoustic hearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1687425

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.