Literature DB >> 15139640

Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.

Peggy B Nelson1, Su-Hyun Jin.   

Abstract

Previous work [Nelson, Jin, Carney, and Nelson (2003), J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113, 961-968] suggested that cochlear implant users do not benefit from masking release when listening in modulated noise. The previous findings indicated that implant users experience little to no release from masking when identifying sentences in speech-shaped noise, regardless of the modulation frequency applied to the noise. The lack of masking release occurred for all implant subjects who were using three different devices and speech processing strategies. In the present study, possible causes of this reduced masking release in implant listeners were investigated. Normal-hearing listeners, implant users, and normal-hearing listeners presented with a four-band simulation of a cochlear implant were tested for their understanding of sentences in gated noise (1-32 Hz gate frequencies) when the duty cycle of the noise was varied from 25% to 75%. No systematic effect of noise duty cycle on implant and simulation listeners' performance was noted, indicating that the masking caused by gated noise is not only energetic masking. Masking release significantly increased when the number of spectral channels was increased from 4 to 12 for simulation listeners, suggesting that spectral resolution is important for masking release. Listeners were also tested for their understanding of gated sentences (sentences in quiet interrupted by periods of silence ranging from 1 to 32 Hz as a measure of auditory fusion, or the ability to integrate speech across temporal gaps. Implant and simulation listeners had significant difficulty understanding gated sentences at every gate frequency. When the number of spectral channels was increased for simulation listeners, their ability to understand gated sentences improved significantly. Findings suggest that implant listeners' difficulty understanding speech in modulated conditions is related to at least two (possibly related) factors: degraded spectral information and limitations in auditory fusion across temporal gaps.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15139640     DOI: 10.1121/1.1703538

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


  66 in total

1.  Perception of interrupted speech: effects of dual-rate gating on the intelligibility of words and sentences.

Authors:  Valeriy Shafiro; Stanley Sheft; Robert Risley
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Factors influencing recognition of interrupted speech.

Authors:  Xin Wang; Larry E Humes
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Psychometric functions for sentence recognition in sinusoidally amplitude-modulated noises.

Authors:  Yi Shen; Nicole K Manzano; Virginia M Richards
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; Geraldine Nogaki
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-04-22

7.  Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Kaibao Nie; Ginger S Stickney; Ying-Yee Kong; Michael Vongphoe; Ashish Bhargave; Chaogang Wei; Keli Cao
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-01-27       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  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

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.