Literature DB >> 17225426

Vowel recognition via cochlear implants and noise vocoders: effects of formant movement and duration.

Paul Iverson1, Charlotte A Smith, Bronwen G Evans.   

Abstract

Previous work has demonstrated that normal-hearing individuals use fine-grained phonetic variation, such as formant movement and duration, when recognizing English vowels. The present study investigated whether these cues are used by adult postlingually deafened cochlear implant users, and normal-hearing individuals listening to noise-vocoder simulations of cochlear implant processing. In Experiment 1, subjects gave forced-choice identification judgments for recordings of vowels that were signal processed to remove formant movement and/or equate vowel duration. In Experiment 2, a goodness-optimization procedure was used to create perceptual vowel space maps (i.e., best exemplars within a vowel quadrilateral) that included F1, F2, formant movement, and duration. The results demonstrated that both cochlear implant users and normal-hearing individuals use formant movement and duration cues when recognizing English vowels. Moreover, both listener groups used these cues to the same extent, suggesting that postlingually deafened cochlear implant users have category representations for vowels that are similar to those of normal-hearing individuals.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17225426     DOI: 10.1121/1.2372453

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


  8 in total

1.  Vowel identification by cochlear implant users: Contributions of duration cues and dynamic spectral cues.

Authors:  Gail S Donaldson; Catherine L Rogers; Lindsay B Johnson; Soo Hee Oh
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Do adults with cochlear implants rely on different acoustic cues for phoneme perception than adults with normal hearing?

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Joanna H Lowenstein; Eric Tarr; Amanda Caldwell-Tarr; D Bradley Welling; Antoine J Shahin; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  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

4.  Contribution of formant frequency information to vowel perception in steady-state noise by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Elad Sagi; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Acoustic cue integration in speech intonation recognition with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Shu-Chen Peng; Monita Chatterjee; Nelson Lu
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2012-07-11

6.  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

7.  Lexico-semantic and acoustic-phonetic processes in the perception of noise-vocoded speech: implications for cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Carolyn McGettigan; Stuart Rosen; Sophie K Scott
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2014-02-25

8.  Discriminability and Perceptual Saliency of Temporal and Spectral Cues for Final Fricative Consonant Voicing in Simulated Cochlear-Implant and Bimodal Hearing.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Matthew B Winn; Katja Poellmann; Gail S Donaldson
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 3.293

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.