Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Otorhinolaryngol. May 28, 2016; 6(2): 45-49
Published online May 28, 2016. doi: 10.5319/wjo.v6.i2.45
Published online May 28, 2016. doi: 10.5319/wjo.v6.i2.45
Table 1 Mean and standard deviation of correct raw score (words) with different number of channels at various signal-to-noise ratios
| -5 dB SNR | 0 dB SNR | +5 dB SNR | ||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| 4 channels | 4.00 | 3.25 | 5.26 | 3.27 | 8.63 | 5.14 |
| 8 channels | 15.10 | 5.84 | 18.00 | 4.84 | 19.86 | 4.04 |
| 32 channels | 23.90 | 5.17 | 25.63 | 3.71 | 26.93 | 1.70 |
Table 2 Bonferroni multiple pairwise comparisons at all the possible combinations for words (4, 8 and 32 channel) at +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio, 0 dB signal-to-noise ratio and -5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (bP < 0.001)
| SNR | Channels | 8 channels (mean difference) | 32 channels (mean difference) |
| +5 dB SNR | 4 channels | -11.23b | -18.3b |
| 8 channels | -7.06b | ||
| 0 dB SNR | 4 channels | -12.73b | -20.36b |
| 8 channels | -7.63b | ||
| -5 dB SNR | 4 channels | -11.1b | -19.9b |
| 8 channels | -8.8b |
- Citation: Kumar P, Sanju HK, Kumar S, Singh V. Word perception in noise at different channels in simulated cochlear implant listeners. World J Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 6(2): 45-49
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-6247/full/v6/i2/45.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5319/wjo.v6.i2.45