The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: Benefits of residual acoustic hearing
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.
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
Cited by
Cochlear Implants: System Design, Integration, and Evaluation
Zeng, F.-G., Rebscher, S., Harrison, W., Sun, X., & Feng, H. (2008) · IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/rbme.2008.2008250 · Cited by 878
Music Perception with Cochlear Implants: A Review
McDermott, H. J. (2004) · Trends in Amplification · doi:10.1177/108471380400800203 · Cited by 549
Combining acoustic and electrical hearing
Gantz, B. J., & Turner, C. W. (2003) · The Laryngoscope · doi:10.1097/00005537-200310000-00012 · Cited by 377
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Turner, C. W., Gantz, B. J., Vidal, C., Behrens, A., & Henry, B. A.
- Venue
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
- Publisher
- Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
- 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.