Literature DB >> 10738818

Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies.

G S Donaldson1, D A Nelson.   

Abstract

Two related studies investigated the relationship between place-pitch sensitivity and consonant recognition in cochlear implant listeners using the Nucleus MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. Average place-pitch sensitivity across the electrode array was evaluated as a function of electrode separation, using a psychophysical electrode pitch-ranking task. Consonant recognition was assessed by analyzing error matrices obtained with a standard consonant confusion procedure to obtain relative transmitted information (RTI) measures for three features: stimulus (RTI stim), envelope (RTI env[plc]), and place-of-articulation (RTI plc[env]). The first experiment evaluated consonant recognition performance with MPEAK and SPEAK in the same subjects. Subjects were experienced users of the MPEAK strategy who used the SPEAK strategy on a daily basis for one month and were tested with both processors. It was hypothesized that subjects with good place-pitch sensitivity would demonstrate better consonant place-cue perception with SPEAK than with MPEAK, by virtue of their ability to make use of SPEAK's enhanced representation of spectral speech cues. Surprisingly, all but one subject demonstrated poor consonant place-cue performance with both MPEAK and SPEAK even though most subjects demonstrated good or excellent place-pitch sensitivity. Consistent with this, no systematic relationship between place-pitch sensitivity and consonant place-cue performance was observed. Subjects' poor place-cue perception with SPEAK was subsequently attributed to the relatively short period of experience that they were given with the SPEAK strategy. The second study reexamined the relationship between place-pitch sensitivity and consonant recognition in a group of experienced SPEAK users. For these subjects, a positive relationship was observed between place-pitch sensitivity and consonant place-cue performance, supporting the hypothesis that good place-pitch sensitivity facilitates subjects' use of spectral cues to consonant identity. A strong, linear relationship was also observed between measures of envelope- and place-cue extraction, with place-cue performance increasing as a constant proportion (approximately 0.8) of envelope-cue performance. To the extent that the envelope-cue measure reflects subjects' abilities to resolve amplitude fluctuations in the speech envelope, this finding suggests that both envelope- and place-cue perception depend strongly on subjects' envelope-processing abilities. Related to this, the data suggest that good place-cue perception depends both on envelope-processing abilities and place-pitch sensitivity, and that either factor may limit place-cue perception in a given cochlear implant listener. Data from both experiments indicate that subjects with small electric dynamic ranges (< 8 dB for 125-Hz, 205-microsecond/ph pulse trains) are more likely to demonstrate poor electrode pitch-ranking skills and poor consonant recognition performance than subjects with larger electric dynamic ranges.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10738818     DOI: 10.1121/1.428449

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  35 in total

Review 1.  Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-06

2.  Deactivating cochlear implant electrodes to improve speech perception: A computational approach.

Authors:  Elad Sagi; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-10-19       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Psychophysical metrics and speech recognition in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Li Xu
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2005-08-05       Impact factor: 1.854

4.  Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Ward R Drennan; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-06-21

5.  Maximizing cochlear implant patients' performance with advanced speech training procedures.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; John J Galvin
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-12-08       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Forward-masked spatial tuning curves in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  David A Nelson; Gail S Donaldson; Heather Kreft
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Effects of carrier pulse rate and stimulation site on modulation detection by subjects with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Li Xu; Catherine S Thompson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Speech recognition and temporal amplitude modulation processing by Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Xin Luo; Qian-Jie Fu; Chao-Gang Wei; Ke-Li Cao
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  A relation between electrode discrimination and amplitude modulation detection by cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Jian Yu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.