Literature DB >> 17152439

Unintelligible low-frequency sound enhances simulated cochlear-implant speech recognition in noise.

Janice E Chang1, John Y Bai, Fan-Gang Zeng.   

Abstract

Speech can be recognized by multiple acoustic cues in both frequency and time domains. These acoustic cues are often thought to be redundant. One example is the low-frequency sound component below 300 Hz, which is not even transmitted by the majority of communication devices including telephones. Here, we showed that this low-frequency sound component, although unintelligible when presented alone, could improve the functional signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) by 10-15 dB for speech recognition in noise when presented in combination with a cochlear-implant simulation. A similar low-frequency enhancement effect could be obtained by presenting the low-frequency sound component to one ear and the cochlear-implant simulation to the other ear. However, a high-frequency sound could not produce a similar speech enhancement in noise. We argue that this low-frequency enhancement effect cannot be due to linear addition of intelligibility between low- and high-frequency components or an increase in the physical SNR. We suggest a brain-based mechanism that uses the voice pitch cue in the low-frequency sound to first segregate the target voice from the competing voice and then to group appropriate temporal envelope cues in the target voice for robust speech recognition under realistic listening situations.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17152439     DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2006.883793

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng        ISSN: 0018-9294            Impact factor:   4.538


  44 in total

1.  The relative phonetic contributions of a cochlear implant and residual acoustic hearing to bimodal speech perception.

Authors:  Benjamin M Sheffield; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Fundamental frequency is critical to speech perception in noise in combined acoustic and electric hearing.

Authors:  Jeff Carroll; Stephanie Tiaden; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Shifting fundamental frequency in simulated electric-acoustic listening.

Authors:  Christopher A Brown; Nicole M Scherrer; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  A simulation study of harmonics regeneration in noise reduction for electric and acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Yi Hu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Clinical selection criteria for a second cochlear implant for bimodal listeners.

Authors:  Yang-soo Yoon; You-Ree Shin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Evaluation of hearing aid frequency response fittings in pediatric and young adult bimodal recipients.

Authors:  Lisa S Davidson; Jill B Firszt; Chris Brenner; Jamie H Cadieux
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Rene H Gifford
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 2.117

8.  The benefits of bimodal hearing: effect of frequency region and acoustic bandwidth.

Authors:  Sterling W Sheffield; René H Gifford
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2014-02-15       Impact factor: 1.854

9.  Contribution of consonant landmarks to speech recognition in simulated acoustic-electric hearing.

Authors:  Fei Chen; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Two ears and two (or more?) devices: a pediatric case study of bilateral profound hearing loss.

Authors:  Rosalie M Uchanski; Lisa S Davidson; Sharon Quadrizius; Ruth Reeder; Jamie Cadieux; Jerrica Kettel; Richard A Chole
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2009-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.