Literature DB >> 19275323

Low-frequency speech cues and simulated electric-acoustic hearing.

Christopher A Brown1, Sid P Bacon.   

Abstract

The addition of low-frequency acoustic information to real or simulated electric stimulation (so-called electric-acoustic stimulation or EAS) often results in large improvements in intelligibility, particularly in competing backgrounds. This may reflect the availability of fundamental frequency (F0) information in the acoustic region. The contributions of F0 and the amplitude envelope (as well as voicing) of speech to simulated EAS was examined by replacing the low-frequency speech with a tone that was modulated in frequency to track the F0 of the speech, in amplitude with the envelope of the low-frequency speech, or both. A four-channel vocoder simulated electric hearing. Significant benefit over vocoder alone was observed with the addition of a tone carrying F0 or envelope cues, and both cues combined typically provided significantly more benefit than either alone. The intelligibility improvement over vocoder was between 24 and 57 percentage points, and was unaffected by the presence of a tone carrying these cues from a background talker. These results confirm the importance of the F0 of target speech for EAS (in simulation). They indicate that significant benefit can be provided by a tone carrying F0 and amplitude envelope cues. The results support a glimpsing account of EAS and argue against segregation.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19275323      PMCID: PMC2736727          DOI: 10.1121/1.3068441

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


  27 in total

1.  Influence of fundamental frequency on stop-consonant voicing perception: a case of learned covariation or auditory enhancement?

Authors:  L L Holt; A J Lotto; K R Kluender
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  YIN, a fundamental frequency estimator for speech and music.

Authors:  Alain de Cheveigné; Hideki Kawahara
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Effects of reverberation on perceptual segregation of competing voices.

Authors:  John F Culling; Kathryn I Hodder; Chaz Yee Toh
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 1.840

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

Authors:  Michael K Qin; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2004-05

6.  Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Christopher W Turner; Bruce J Gantz; Corina Vidal; Amy Behrens; Belinda A Henry
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Acoustic cues to lexical segmentation: a study of resynthesized speech.

Authors:  Stephanie M Spitzer; Julie M Liss; Sven L Mattys
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. New technology for severe hearing loss.

Authors:  C von Ilberg; J Kiefer; J Tillein; T Pfenningdorff; R Hartmann; E Stürzebecher; R Klinke
Journal:  ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.538

9.  Combining acoustic and electrical speech processing: Iowa/Nucleus hybrid implant.

Authors:  Bruce J Gantz; Christopher Turner
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 1.494

10.  Combining acoustic and electrical hearing.

Authors:  Bruce J Gantz; Christopher W Turner
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.325

View more
  47 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.  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

3.  Talker-identification training using simulations of binaurally combined electric and acoustic hearing: generalization to speech and emotion recognition.

Authors:  Vidya Krull; Xin Luo; Karen Iler Kirk
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  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

5.  Effects of introducing low-frequency harmonics in the perception of vocoded telephone speech.

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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Dual-carrier processing to convey temporal fine structure cues: Implications for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Frédéric Apoux; Carla L Youngdahl; Sarah E Yoho; Eric W Healy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Performance variability on perceptual discrimination tasks in profoundly deaf adults with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Marcia J Hay-McCutcheon; Nathaniel R Peterson; David B Pisoni; Karen Iler Kirk; Xin Yang; Jason Parton
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 2.288

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.