Literature DB >> 12880055

Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers.

Michael K Qin1, Andrew J Oxenham.   

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in a variety of complex masking situations. Speech recognition was measured as a function of target-to-masker ratio, processing condition (4, 8, 24 channels, and unprocessed) and masker type (speech-shaped noise, amplitude-modulated speech-shaped noise, single male talker, and single female talker). The results showed that simulated implant processing was more detrimental to speech reception in fluctuating interference than in steady-state noise. Performance in the 24-channel processing condition was substantially poorer than in the unprocessed condition, despite the comparable representation of the spectral envelope. The detrimental effects of simulated implant processing in fluctuating maskers, even with large numbers of channels, may be due to the reduction in the pitch cues used in sound source segregation, which are normally carried by the peripherally resolved low-frequency harmonics and the temporal fine structure. The results suggest that using steady-state noise to test speech intelligibility may underestimate the difficulties experienced by cochlear-implant users in fluctuating acoustic backgrounds.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12880055     DOI: 10.1121/1.1579009

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


  145 in total

1.  Revisiting place and temporal theories of pitch.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Acoust Sci Technol       Date:  2013

2.  Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham; Joshua G W Bernstein; Hector Penagos
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-01-12       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Relative contribution of target and masker temporal fine structure to the unmasking of consonants in noise.

Authors:  Frédéric Apoux; Eric W Healy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening.

Authors:  Kate Helms Tillery; Christopher A Brown; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Masking release and the contribution of obstruent consonants on speech recognition in noise by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ning Li; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Interrupted speech perception: the effects of hearing sensitivity and frequency resolution.

Authors:  Su-Hyun Jin; Peggy B Nelson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Relative contribution of off- and on-frequency spectral components of background noise to the masking of unprocessed and vocoded speech.

Authors:  Frédéric Apoux; Eric W Healy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Multi-microphone adaptive noise reduction strategies for coordinated stimulation in bilateral cochlear implant devices.

Authors:  Kostas Kokkinakis; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Masking release for low- and high-pass-filtered speech in the presence of noise and single-talker interference.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham; Andrea M Simonson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Speech recognition by bilateral cochlear implant users in a cocktail-party setting.

Authors:  Philipos C Loizou; Yi Hu; Ruth Litovsky; Gongqiang Yu; Robert Peters; Jennifer Lake; Peter Roland
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.