Computational Modeling of Sensorineural Hearing Loss

  • Michael G. Heinz
Part of the Springer Handbook of Auditory Research book series (SHAR, volume 35)


Models of auditory signal processing have been used for many years to provide parsimonious explanations for how the normal auditory system functions at the physiological and perceptual levels, as well as to provide useful insight into the physiological bases for perception. Such models have also been used in many applications, such as automatic speech recognition, audio coding, and signal-processing strategies for hearing aids and cochlear implants. Here, an application framework is considered that is motivated by the long-term goal of using computational models to maximize the ability to apply physiological knowledge to overcome auditory dysfunction in individual patients. This long-term goal motivates the present ­chapter’s focus, which is on physiologically based computational models of auditory signal processing that have been used to explore issues related to sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). Specifically, this chapter considers phenomenological signal processing models (rather than biophysical models) that predict normal and impaired peripheral responses to complex stimuli. These types of models are likely to be most useful in the specific applications needed to achieve the stated long-term goal, such as explaining the physiological bases for perceptual effects of SNHL, diagnosing the underlying physiological cochlear status of individual patients, and fitting and designing hearing-aid algorithms in a quantitative physiological framework.


Cochlear Implant Auditory Nerve Sound Level Speech Intelligibility Good Frequency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Preparation of this chapter was partially supported by a grant from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R03-DC007348). Thanks are expressed to Kimberly Chamberlain for her assistance with manuscript preparation.


  1. Assmann P, Summerfield Q (2004) The perception of speech under adverse conditions. In: Greenberg S, Ainsworth WA, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds), Speech Processing in the Auditory System. New York: Springer, pp. 231–308.Google Scholar
  2. Bacon SP, Oxenham AJ (2004) Psychophysical manifestations of compression: hearing-impaired listeners. In: Bacon SP, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds), Compression: From Cochlea to Cochlear Implants. New York: Springer, pp. 107–152.Google Scholar
  3. Baer T, Moore BCJ (1997) Evaluation of a scheme to compensate for reduced frequency selectivity in hearing-impaired subjects. In: Jesteadt W (ed), Modeling Sensorineural Hearing Loss. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 329–341.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer CA, Brozoski TJ (2008) Tinnitus: theories, mechanisms and treatments. In: Schacht J, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds), Auditory Trauma, Protection and Repair. New York: Springer, pp. 101–130.Google Scholar
  5. Biondi E (1978) Auditory processing of speech and its implications with respect to prosthetic rehabilitation. The bioengineering viewpoint. Audiology 17:43–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Biondi E, Schmid R (1972) Mathematical models and prostheses for sense organs. In: Mohler RR, Ruberti A (eds), Theory and Applications of Variable Structure Systems. London: Academic, pp. 183–211.Google Scholar
  7. Bondy J, Becker S, Bruce IC, Trainor L, Haykin S (2004a) A novel signal-processing strategy for hearing-aid design: neurocompensation. Signal Process 84:1239–1253.Google Scholar
  8. Bondy J, Bruce IC, Becker S, Haykin S (2004b) Predicting speech intelligibility from a population of neurons. In: Thrun S, Saul L, Scholkopf B (eds), NIPS 2003 Conference Proceedings: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 16. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1409–1416.Google Scholar
  9. Bruce IC (2004) Physiological assessment of contrast-enhancing frequency shaping and multiband compression in hearing aids. Physiol Meas 25:945–956.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruce IC, Zilany MSA (2007) Computational modelling of the cat auditory periphery: recent developments and future directions. In: Proceedings of 19th International Congress on Acoustics, Madrid, Spain, pp. PPA-07-004-IP: 001–006.Google Scholar
  11. Bruce IC, Sachs MB, Young ED (2003) An auditory-periphery model of the effects of acoustic trauma on auditory nerve responses. J Acoust Soc Am 113:369–388.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruce IC, Dinath F, Zeyl TJ (2007) Insights into optimal phonemic compression from a computational model of the auditory periphery. In: Dau T, Buchholz J, Harte JM, Christiansen TU (eds), Auditory Signal Processing in Hearing-Impaired Listeners, International Symposium on Audiological and Auditory Research (ISAAR). Denmark: Danavox Jubilee Foundation, pp. 73–81.Google Scholar
  13. Cai S, Ma WL, Young ED (2009) Encoding intensity in ventral cochlear nucleus following ­acoustic trauma: implications for loudness recruitment. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 10:5–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Calandruccio L, Doherty KA, Carney LH, Kikkeri HN (2007) Perception of temporally processed speech by listeners with hearing impairment. Ear Hear 28:512–523.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Carney LH (1993) A model for the responses of low-frequency auditory-nerve fibers in cat. J Acoust Soc Am 93:401–417.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Carney LH (1994) Spatiotemporal encoding of sound level: models for normal encoding and recruitment of loudness. Hear Res 76:31–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Carney LH, McDuffy MJ, Shekhter I (1999) Frequency glides in the impulse responses of ­auditory-nerve fibers. J Acoust Soc Am 105:2384–2391.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Carney LH, Heinz MG, Evilsizer ME, Gilkey RH, Colburn HS (2002) Auditory phase opponency: a temporal model for masked detection at low frequencies. Acust Acta Acust 88:334–347.Google Scholar
  19. Cedolin L, Delgutte B (2007) Spatio-temporal representation of the pitch of complex tones in the auditory nerve. In: Kollmeier B, Klump G, Hohmann V, Langemann U, M. Mauermann, Uppenkamp S, Verhey J (eds), Hearing: From Sensory Processing to Perception. Berlin: Springer, pp. 61–70.Google Scholar
  20. Chen Z, Becker S, Bondy J, Bruce IC, Haykin S (2005) A novel model-based hearing compensation design using a gradient-free optimization method. Neural Comput 17:2648–2671.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Colburn HS (1973) Theory of binaural interaction based on auditory-nerve data. I. General strategy and preliminary results on interaural discrimination. J Acoust Soc Am 54:1458–1470.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Dallos P, Harris D (1978) Properties of auditory nerve responses in absence of outer hair cells. J Neurophysiol 41:365–383.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Delgutte B (1996) Physiological models for basic auditory percepts. In: Hawkins HL, McMullen TA, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds), Auditory Computation. New York: Springer, pp. 157–220.Google Scholar
  24. Deng L, Geisler CD (1987) A composite auditory model for processing speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am 82:2001–2012.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Dillon H (2001) Hearing Aids. New York: Thieme.Google Scholar
  26. Edwards B (2002) Signal processing, hearing aid design, and the psychoacoustic Turing test. IEEE Proc Int Conf Acoust Speech Signal Proc 4:3996–3999.Google Scholar
  27. Edwards B (2004) Hearing aids and hearing impairment. In: Greenberg S, Ainsworth WA, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds), Speech Processing in the Auditory System. New York: Springer, pp. 339–421.Google Scholar
  28. Edwards B (2007) The future of hearing aid technology. Trends Amplif 11:31–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Franck BA, van Kreveld-Bos CS, Dreschler WA, Verschuure H (1999) Evaluation of spectral enhancement in hearing aids, combined with phonemic compression. J Acoust Soc Am 106:1452–1464.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Gagné JP (1988) Excess masking among listeners with a sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 83:2311–2321.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Geisler CD (1989) The responses of models of “high-spontaneous” auditory-nerve fibers in a damaged cochlea to speech syllables in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 86:2192–2205.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Giguère C, Smoorenburg GF (1998) Computational modeling of outer hair cells damage: Implications for hearing aid and signal processing. In: Dau T, Hohmann V, Kollmeier B (eds), Psychophysics, Physiology and Models of Hearing. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 155–164.Google Scholar
  33. Giguère C, Woodland PC (1994a) A computational model of the auditory periphery for speech and hearing research. I. Ascending path. J Acoust Soc Am 95:331–342.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Giguère C, Woodland PC (1994b) A computational model of the auditory periphery for speech and hearing research.II. Descending paths. J Acoust Soc Am 95:343–349.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Giguère C, Bosman AJ, Smoorenburg GF (1997) Automatic speech recognition experiments with a model of normal and impaired peripheral hearing. Acust Acta Acust 83:1065–1076.Google Scholar
  36. Goldstein JL (1995) Relations among compression, suppression, and combination tones in mechanical responses of the basilar membrane: data and MBPNL model. Hear Res 89:52–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Harrison RV, Evans EF (1979) Some aspects of temporal coding by single cochlear fibres from regions of cochlear hair cell degeneration in the guinea pig. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 224:71–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Heinz MG (2000) Quantifying the effects of the cochlear amplifier on temporal and average-rate information in the auditory nerve. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  39. Heinz MG (2007) Spatiotemporal encoding of vowels in noise studied with the responses of individual auditory nerve fibers. In: Kollmeier B, Klump G, Hohmann V, Langemann U, M. Mauermann, Uppenkamp S, Verhey J (eds), Hearing: From Sensory Processing to Perception. Berlin: Springer, pp. 107–115.Google Scholar
  40. Heinz MG, Young ED (2004) Response growth with sound level in auditory-nerve fibers after noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurophysiol 91:784–795.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Heinz MG, Colburn HS, Carney LH (2001a) Evaluating auditory performance limits: I. One-parameter discrimination using a computational model for the auditory nerve. Neural Comput 13:2273–2316.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Heinz MG, Colburn HS, Carney LH (2001b) Rate and timing cues associated with the cochlear amplifier: level discrimination based on monaural cross-frequency coincidence detection. J Acoust Soc Am 110:2065–2084.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Heinz MG, Zhang X, Bruce IC, Carney LH (2001c) Auditory-nerve model for predicting performance limits of normal and impaired listeners. Acoust Res Lett Online 2:91–96.Google Scholar
  44. Heinz MG, Colburn HS, Carney LH (2002) Quantifying the implications of nonlinear cochlear tuning for auditory-filter estimates. J Acoust Soc Am 111:996–1011.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Heinz MG, Issa JB, Young ED (2005a) Auditory-nerve rate responses are inconsistent with common hypotheses for the neural correlates of loudness recruitment. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 6:91–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Heinz MG, Scepanovic D, Issa JB, Sachs MB, Young ED (2005b) Normal and impaired level encoding: effects of noise-induced hearing loss on auditory-nerve responses. In: Pressnitzer D, de Cheveigné A, McAdams S, Collet L (eds), Auditory Signal Processing: Physiology, Psychoacoustics and Models. New York: Springer, pp. 40–49.Google Scholar
  47. Huettel LG, Collins LM (2003) A theoretical comparison of information transmission in the peripheral auditory system: normal and impaired frequency discrimination. Speech Commun 39:5–21.Google Scholar
  48. Huettel LG, Collins LM (2004) A theoretical analysis of normal- and impaired-hearing intensity discrimination. IEEE Trans Speech Audio Process 12:323–333.Google Scholar
  49. Johnson TA, Gorga MP, Neely ST, Oxenham AJ, Shera CA (2007) Relationships between otoacoustic and psychophysical measures of cochlear function. In: Manley GA, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds), Active Processes and Otoacoustic Emissions in Hearing. New York: Springer, pp. 395–420.Google Scholar
  50. Joris PX, Van de Sande B, Louage DH, van der Heijden M (2006) Binaural and cochlear disparities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:12917–12922.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Kates JM (1991a) Modeling normal and impaired hearing – implications for hearing-aid design. Ear Hear 12:S162–S176.Google Scholar
  52. Kates JM (1991b) A time-domain digital cochlear model. IEEE Trans Signal Process 39:2573–2592.Google Scholar
  53. Kates JM (1993) Toward a theory of optimal hearing-aid processing. J Rehabil Res Dev 30:39–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Kates JM (1997) Using a cochlear model to develop adaptive hearing-aid processing. In: Jesteadt W (ed) Modeling Sensorineural Hearing Loss. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 79–92.Google Scholar
  55. Kiang NYS (1990) Curious oddments of auditory-nerve studies. Hear Res 49:1–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Kiang NYS, Moxon EC (1974) Tails of tuning curves of auditory-nerve fibers. J Acoust Soc Am 55:620–630.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Launer S, Moore BCJ (2003) Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. V. On-line gain control in a digital hearing aid. Int J Audiol 42:262–273.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Leijon A (1990) Hearing aid gain for loudness-density normalization in cochlear hearing losses with impaired frequency resolution. Ear Hear 12:242–250.Google Scholar
  59. Levitt H (2004) Compression Amplification. In: Bacon SP, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds), Compression: From Cochlea to Cochlear Implants. New York: Springer, pp. 153–183.Google Scholar
  60. Liberman MC (1984) Single-neuron labeling and chronic cochlear pathology. I. Threshold shift and characteristic-frequency shift. Hear Res 16:33–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Liberman MC, Dodds LW (1984a) Single-neuron labeling and chronic cochlear pathology. II. Stereocilia damage and alterations of spontaneous discharge rates. Hear Res 16:43–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Liberman MC, Dodds LW (1984b) Single-neuron labeling and chronic cochlear pathology. III. Stereocilia damage and alterations of threshold tuning curves. Hear Res 16:55–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Liberman MC, Kiang NYS (1984) Single-neuron labeling and chronic cochlear pathology. IV. Stereocilia damage and alterations in rate- and phase-level functions. Hear Res 16:75–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Liberman MC, Gao J, He DZ, Wu X, Jia S, Zuo J (2002) Prestin is required for electromotility of the outer hair cell and for the cochlear amplifier. Nature 419:300–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Loeb GE, White MW, Merzenich MM (1983) Spatial cross-correlation – a proposed mechanism for acoustic pitch perception. Biol Cybern 47:149–163.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Lopez-Poveda EA (2005) Spectral processing by the peripheral auditory system: facts and models. Int Rev Neurobiol 70:7–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Lopez-Poveda EA, Meddis R (2001) A human nonlinear cochlear filterbank. J Acoust Soc Am 110:3107–3118.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Lopez-Poveda EA, Plack CJ, Meddis R (2003) Cochlear nonlinearity between 500 and 8000 Hz in listeners with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 113:951–960.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Lopez-Poveda EA, Johannesen PT, Merchán MA (2009) Estimation of the degree of inner and outer hair cell dysfunction from distortion product otoacoustic emission input/output functions. Audiol Med 7:22–28.Google Scholar
  70. Lorenzi C, Gilbert G, Carn H, Garnier S, Moore BCJ (2006) Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:18866–18869.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Meddis R, O’Mard LP, Lopez-Poveda EA (2001) A computational algorithm for computing nonlinear auditory frequency selectivity. J Acoust Soc Am 109:2852–2861.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Miller RL, Schilling JR, Franck KR, Young ED (1997) Effects of acoustic trauma on the representation of the vowel /e/ in cat auditory nerve fibers. J Acoust Soc Am 101:3602–3616.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Miller RL, Calhoun BM, Young ED (1999) Contrast enhancement improves the representation of /e/-like vowels in the hearing-impaired auditory nerve. J Acoust Soc Am 106:2693–2708.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Moore BCJ (1995) Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Damage. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Moore BCJ (2000) Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. IV. Fitting hearing aids with multi-channel compression so as to restore ‘normal’ loudness for speech at different levels. Br J Audiol 34:165–177.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Moore BCJ (2004) Dead regions in the cochlea: conceptual foundations, diagnosis, and clinical applications. Ear Hear 25:98–116.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR (1997) A model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Aud Neurosci 3:289–311.Google Scholar
  78. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR (2004) A revised model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Hear Res 188:70–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Moore BCJ, Oxenham AJ (1998) Psychoacoustic consequences of compression in the peripheral auditory system. Psychol Rev 105:108–124.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Stone MA (1999) Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting: III. A general method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression. Br J Audiol 33:241–258.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Oxenham AJ, Bacon SP (2003) Cochlear compression: perceptual measures and implications for normal and impaired hearing. Ear Hear 24:352–366.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Patuzzi R (1996) Cochlear micromechanics and macromechanics. In: Dallos P, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds), The Cochlea. New York: Springer, pp. 186–257.Google Scholar
  83. Plack CJ, Drga V, Lopez-Poveda EA (2004) Inferred basilar-membrane response functions for listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 115:1684–1695.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Robles L, Ruggero MA (2001) Mechanics of the mammalian cochlea. Physiol Rev 81:1305–1352.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Ruggero MA (1992) Physiology and coding of sound in the auditory nerve. In: Popper AN, Fay RR (eds), The Mammalian Auditory Pathway: Neurophysiology. New York: Springer, pp. 34–93.Google Scholar
  86. Ruggero MA, Rich NC (1991) Furosemide alters organ of Corti mechanics: evidence for feedback of outer hair cells upon the basilar membrane. J Neurosci 11:1057–1067.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Ruggero MA, Rich NC, Shivapuja BG, Temchin AN (1996) Auditory-nerve responses to low-frequency tones: intensity dependence. Aud Neurosci 2:159–185.Google Scholar
  88. Ruggero MA, Rich NC, Recio A, Narayan SS, Robles L (1997) Basilar-membrane responses to tones at the base of the chinchilla cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 101:2151–2163.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Sachs MB, Kiang NY (1968) Two-tone inhibition in auditory-nerve fibers. J Acoust Soc Am 43:1120–1128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Sachs MB, Bruce IC, Miller RL, Young ED (2002) Biological basis of hearing-aid design. Ann Biomed Eng 30:157–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Schaette R, Kempter R (2006) Development of tinnitus-related neuronal hyperactivity through homeostatic plasticity after hearing loss: a computational model. Eur J Neurosci 23:3124–3138.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Schmiedt RA, Zwislocki JJ, Hamernik RP (1980) Effects of hair cell lesions on responses of cochlear nerve fibers. I. Lesions, tuning curves, two-tone inhibition, and responses to trapezoidal-wave patterns. J Neurophysiol 43:1367–1389.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Schmiedt RA, Lang H, Okamura HO, Schulte BA (2002) Effects of furosemide applied chronically to the round window: a model of metabolic presbyacusis. J Neurosci 22:9643–9650.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Schoonhoven R, Keijzer J, Versnel H, Prijs VF (1994) A dual filter model describing single-fiber responses to clicks in the normal and noise-damaged cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 95:2104–2121.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Sewell WF (1984a) The effects of furosemide on the endocochlear potential and auditory-nerve fiber tuning curves in cats. Hear Res 14:305–314.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Sewell WF (1984b) Furosemide selectively reduces one component in rate-level functions from auditory-nerve fibers. Hear Res 15:69–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Shamma SA (1985) Speech processing in the auditory system. I: The representation of speech sounds in the responses of the auditory nerve. J Acoust Soc Am 78:1612–1621.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Shamma SA, Shen NM, Gopalaswamy P (1989) Stereausis: binaural processing without neural delays. J Acoust Soc Am 86:989–1006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Shi LF, Carney LH, Doherty KA (2006) Correction of the peripheral spatiotemporal response pattern: a potential new signal-processing strategy. J Speech Lang Hear Res 49:848–855.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Siebert WM (1970) Frequency discrimination in auditory system – place or periodicity mechanisms? Proc IEEE 58:723–730.Google Scholar
  101. Tan Q, Carney LH (2003) A phenomenological model for the responses of auditory-nerve fibers. II. Nonlinear tuning with a frequency glide. J Acoust Soc Am 114:2007–2020.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Wang J, Powers NL, Hofstetter P, Trautwein P, Ding D, Salvi R (1997) Effects of selective inner hair cell loss on auditory nerve fiber threshold, tuning and spontaneous and driven discharge rate. Hear Res 107:67–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Wong JC, Miller RL, Calhoun BM, Sachs MB, Young ED (1998) Effects of high sound levels on responses to the vowel /e/ in cat auditory nerve. Hear Res 123:61–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Woolf NK, Ryan AF, Bone RC (1981) Neural phase-locking properties in the absence of cochlear outer hair cells. Hear Res 4:335–346.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Zeng FG, Kong YY, Michalewski HJ, Starr A (2005) Perceptual consequences of disrupted auditory nerve activity. J Neurophysiol 93:3050–3063.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Zhang X, Heinz MG, Bruce IC, Carney LH (2001) A phenomenological model for the responses of auditory-nerve fibers: I. Nonlinear tuning with compression and suppression. J Acoust Soc Am 109:648–670.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Zheng J, Shen W, He DZ, Long KB, Madison LD, Dallos P (2000) Prestin is the motor protein of cochlear outer hair cells. Nature 405:149–155.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. Zilany MSA, Bruce IC (2006) Modeling auditory-nerve responses for high sound pressure levels in the normal and impaired auditory periphery. J Acoust Soc Am 120:1446–1466.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. Zilany MSA, Bruce IC (2007a) Predictions of speech intelligibility with a model of the normal and impaired auditory-periphery. In: Proceedings of 3rd International IEEE EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 481–485.Google Scholar
  110. Zilany MSA, Bruce IC (2007b) Representation of the vowel /e/ in normal and impaired auditory nerve fibers: model predictions of responses in cats. J Acoust Soc Am 122:402–417.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences & Weldon School of Biomedical EngineeringPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations