Literature DB >> 19372651

Effects of cooperating and conflicting cues on speech intonation recognition by cochlear implant users and normal hearing listeners.

Shu-Chen Peng1, Nelson Lu, Monita Chatterjee.   

Abstract

Cochlear implant (CI) recipients have only limited access to fundamental frequency (F0) information, and thus exhibit deficits in speech intonation recognition. For speech intonation, F0 serves as the primary cue, and other potential acoustic cues (e.g. intensity properties) may also contribute. This study examined the effects of cooperating or conflicting acoustic cues on speech intonation recognition by adult CI and normal hearing (NH) listeners with full-spectrum and spectrally degraded speech stimuli. Identification of speech intonation that signifies question and statement contrasts was measured in 13 CI recipients and 4 NH listeners, using resynthesized bi-syllabic words, where F0 and intensity properties were systematically manipulated. The stimulus set was comprised of tokens whose acoustic cues (i.e. F0 contour and intensity patterns) were either cooperating or conflicting. Subjects identified if each stimulus is a 'statement' or a 'question' in a single-interval, 2-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) paradigm. Logistic models were fitted to the data, and estimated coefficients were compared under cooperating and conflicting conditions, between the subject groups (CI vs. NH), and under full-spectrum and spectrally degraded conditions for NH listeners. The results indicated that CI listeners' intonation recognition was enhanced by cooperating F0 contour and intensity cues, but was adversely affected by these cues being conflicting. On the other hand, with full-spectrum stimuli, NH listeners' intonation recognition was not affected by cues being cooperating or conflicting. The effects of cues being cooperating or conflicting were comparable between the CI group and NH listeners with spectrally degraded stimuli. These findings suggest the importance of taking multiple acoustic sources for speech recognition into consideration in aural rehabilitation for CI recipients. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19372651      PMCID: PMC2715009          DOI: 10.1159/000212112

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


  17 in total

1.  Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.

Authors:  L M Friesen; R V Shannon; D Baskent; X Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Individual variability in the perception of cues to place contrasts in initial stops.

Authors:  V Hazan; S Rosen
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1991-02

3.  A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later.

Authors:  D D Greenwood
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Conflicting and cooperating cues: perception of cues to final consonant voicing by infants and adults.

Authors:  R Eilers; D K Oller; R Urbano; D Moroff
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1989-06

5.  Production and perception of speech intonation in pediatric cochlear implant recipients and individuals with normal hearing.

Authors:  Shu-Chen Peng; J Bruce Tomblin; Christopher W Turner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Trading relations in the perception of speech by 5-year-old children.

Authors:  B A Morrongiello; R C Robson; C T Best; R K Clifton
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  1984-04

7.  Perception and production of mandarin tones in prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Shu-Chen Peng; J Bruce Tomblin; Hintat Cheung; Yung-Song Lin; Lih-Sheue Wang
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  The perception of Cantonese lexical tones by early-deafened cochlear implantees.

Authors:  Valter Ciocca; Alexander L Francis; Rani Aisha; Lena Wong
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Spectral and temporal cues to pitch in noise-excited vocoder simulations of continuous-interleaved-sampling cochlear implants.

Authors:  Tim Green; Andrew Faulkner; Stuart Rosen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Effects of the salience of pitch and periodicity information on the intelligibility of four-channel vocoded speech: implications for cochlear implants.

Authors:  A Faulkner; S Rosen; C Smith
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  23 in total

1.  Recognition of interrupted sentences under conditions of spectral degradation.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Fabiola Peredo; Desirae Nelson; Deniz Başkent
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Speech Rate Normalization and Phonemic Boundary Perception in Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Brittany N Jaekel; Rochelle S Newman; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  The perception of emotion and focus prosody with varying acoustic cues in cochlear implant simulations with varying filter slopes.

Authors:  Daan J van de Velde; Niels O Schiller; Vincent J van Heuven; Claartje C Levelt; Joost van Ginkel; Mieke Beers; Jeroen J Briaire; Johan H M Frijns
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Low-frequency fine-structure cues allow for the online use of lexical stress during spoken-word recognition in spectrally degraded speech.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Alexandra Jesse
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Sensitivity to pulse phase duration in cochlear implant listeners: effects of stimulation mode.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Aditya M Kulkarni
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Gender categorization is abnormal in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Christina D Fuller; Etienne Gaudrain; Jeanne N Clarke; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu; Rolien H Free; Deniz Başkent
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-08-30

7.  Effects of age on F0 discrimination and intonation perception in simulated electric and electroacoustic hearing.

Authors:  Pamela Souza; Kathryn Arehart; Christi Wise Miller; Ramesh Kumar Muralimanohar
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Toddlers' recognition of noise-vocoded speech.

Authors:  Rochelle Newman; Monita Chatterjee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Voice emotion recognition by cochlear-implanted children and their normally-hearing peers.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Danielle J Zion; Mickael L Deroche; Brooke A Burianek; Charles J Limb; Alison P Goren; Aditya M Kulkarni; Julie A Christensen
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Melodic pitch perception and lexical tone perception in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Duoduo Tao; Rui Deng; Ye Jiang; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu; Bing Chen
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.