Literature DB >> 12904682

Acoustic and electrical pattern analysis of consonant perceptual cues used by cochlear implant users.

Su Wooi Teoh1, Heidi S Neuburger, Mario A Svirsky.   

Abstract

It is hypothesized that for postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant (CI) users, a significant source of their perceptual performance variability is attributable to differences in their ability to discriminate the basic perceptual cues that are important in speech recognition. Previous research on 'electric hearing' has identified consistent perceptual cues for vowel recognition. However, the results on consonant perception by CI users are less clear. The primary purpose of this study is to present a quantitative method of evaluating potential 'electric cues' used by CI users in consonant identification. Since the actual input signals to the auditory periphery of CI users are electric in nature, we elected to measure the CI electric discharge patterns in addition to the original acoustic waveforms. The characteristics of the electric discharge patterns in response to intervocalic consonants were quantified and correlated with the dimensions of CI patients' perceptual spaces, which were computed from multidimensional scaling analyses of their consonant confusion matrices. The results agree with most, but not all, commonly accepted acoustic cues used by normal-hearing listeners. The correlation findings also suggest that CI users employ different sets of 'electric cues' in perceiving consonants that differ in their manner of articulation. Specifically, spectral and temporal cues associated with slowly changing formant structures and transitions, and features associated with frication and high-frequency noise, are all highly correlated with the perceptual dimensions of all CI users. However, rapidly changing formant transitions, such as those present in stop consonants, did not appear to play a significant role in consonant recognition by more poorly performing CI subjects. The perceptual results were consistent with our physical findings that the SPEAK coding strategy partially degraded the rapidly changing formant transitions. Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12904682     DOI: 10.1159/000072000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Audiol Neurootol        ISSN: 1420-3030            Impact factor:   1.854


  9 in total

1.  Current and planned cochlear implant research at New York University Laboratory for Translational Auditory Research.

Authors:  Mario A Svirsky; Matthew B Fitzgerald; Arlene Neuman; Elad Sagi; Chin-Tuan Tan; Darlene Ketten; Brett Martin
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Perception of consonants in reverberation and noise by adults fitted with bimodal devices.

Authors:  Michelle Mason; Kostas Kokkinakis
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 3.  Auditory midbrain implant: a review.

Authors:  Hubert H Lim; Minoo Lenarz; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2009-09

4.  The effect of temporal gap identification on speech perception by users of cochlear implants.

Authors:  Elad Sagi; Adam R Kaiser; Ted A Meyer; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2008-09-19       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  A mathematical model of medial consonant identification by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Mario A Svirsky; Elad Sagi; Ted A Meyer; Adam R Kaiser; Su Wooi Teoh
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  A mathematical model of vowel identification by users of cochlear implants.

Authors:  Elad Sagi; Ted A Meyer; Adam R Kaiser; Su Wooi Teoh; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Quantifying Cochlear Implant Users' Ability for Speaker Identification using CI Auditory Stimuli.

Authors:  Nursadul Mamun; Ria Ghosh; John H L Hansen
Journal:  Interspeech       Date:  2019-09

8.  Transfer of auditory perceptual learning with spectrally reduced speech to speech and nonspeech tasks: implications for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Jeremy L Loebach; David B Pisoni; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 9.  Trends in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2004
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.