Literature DB >> 11572371

Minimum spectral contrast needed for vowel identification by normal hearing and cochlear implant listeners.

P C Loizou1, O Poroy.   

Abstract

The minimum spectral contrast needed for vowel identification by normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners was determined in this study. In experiment 1, a spectral modification algorithm was used that manipulated the channel amplitudes extracted from a 6-channel continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) processor to have a 1-10 dB spectral contrast. The spectrally modified amplitudes of eight natural vowels were presented to six Med-EI/CIS-link users for identification. Results showed that subjects required a 4-6 dB contrast to identify vowels with relatively high accuracy. A 4-6 dB contrast was needed independent of the individual subject's dynamic range (range 9-28 dB). Some cochlear implant (CI) users obtained significantly higher scores with vowels enhanced to 6 dB contrast compared to the original, unenhanced vowels, suggesting that spectral contrast enhancement can improve the vowel identification scores for some CI users. To determine whether the minimum spectral contrast needed for vowel identification was dependent on spectral resolution (number of channels available), vowels were processed in experiment 2 through n (n =4, 6, 8, 12) channels, and synthesized as a linear combination of n sine waves with amplitudes manipulated to have a 1-20 dB spectral contrast. For vowels processed through 4 channels, normal-hearing listeners needed a 6 dB contrast, for 6 and 8 channels a 4 dB contrast was needed, consistent with our findings with CI listeners, and for 12 channels a 1 dB contrast was sufficient to achieve high accuracy (>80%). The above-mentioned findings with normal-hearing listeners suggest that when the spectral resolution is poor, a larger spectral contrast is needed for vowel identification. Conversely, when the spectral resolution is fine, a small spectral contrast (1 dB) is sufficient. The high identification score (82%) achieved with 1 dB contrast was significantly higher than any of the scores reported in the literature using synthetic vowels, and this can be attributed to the fact that we used natural vowels which contained duration and spectral cues (e.g., formant movements) present in fluent speech. The outcomes of experiments 1 and 2, taken together, suggest that CI listeners need a larger spectral contrast (4-6 dB) than normal-hearing listeners to achieve high recognition accuracy, not because of the limited dynamic range, but because of the limited spectral resolution.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11572371     DOI: 10.1121/1.1388004

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


  13 in total

1.  Combined spectral and temporal enhancement to improve cochlear-implant speech perception.

Authors:  Aparajita Bhattacharya; Andrew Vandali; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant users' phoneme, word and sentence recognition in quiet and in noise.

Authors:  Robert V Shannon; Rachel J Cruz; John J Galvin
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2010-07-17       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  The role of spectral and temporal cues in voice gender discrimination by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; Sherol Chinchilla; John J Galvin
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-05-20

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.  Factors affecting masking release in cochlear-implant vocoded speech.

Authors:  Ning Li; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Acoustic Context Alters Vowel Categorization in Perception of Noise-Vocoded Speech.

Authors:  Christian E Stilp
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-03-09

7.  Lexical bias in word recognition by cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Steven P Gianakas; Matthew B Winn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Improving virtual channel discrimination in a multi-channel context.

Authors:  Arthi G Srinivasan; Robert V Shannon; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Objective measures of electrode discrimination with electrically evoked auditory change complex and speech-perception abilities in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder.

Authors:  Shuman He; John H Grose; Holly F B Teagle; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  The use of acoustic cues for phonetic identification: effects of spectral degradation and electric hearing.

Authors:  Matthew B Winn; Monita Chatterjee; William J Idsardi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.482

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.