Literature DB >> 19507928

The use of fundamental frequency for lexical segmentation in listeners with cochlear implants.

Stephanie Spitzer1, Julie Liss, Tony Spahr, Michael Dorman, Kaitlin Lansford.   

Abstract

Fundamental frequency (F0) variation is one of a number of acoustic cues normal hearing listeners use for guiding lexical segmentation of degraded speech. This study examined whether F0 contour facilitates lexical segmentation by listeners fitted with cochlear implants (CIs). Lexical boundary error patterns elicited under unaltered and flattened F0 conditions were compared across three groups: listeners with conventional CI, listeners with CI and preserved low-frequency acoustic hearing, and normal hearing listeners subjected to CI simulations. Results indicate that all groups attended to syllabic stress cues to guide lexical segmentation, and that F0 contours facilitated performance for listeners with low-frequency hearing.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19507928      PMCID: PMC2806437          DOI: 10.1121/1.3129304

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


  19 in total

1.  Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Jan Kiefer; Wolfgang Gstoettner; Wolfgang Baumgartner; Stephan Marcel Pok; Jochen Tillein; Qing Ye; Christoph von Ilberg
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.494

2.  Stress versus coarticulation: toward an integrated approach to explicit speech segmentation.

Authors:  Sven L Mattys
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  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

4.  Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Ginger S Stickney; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 1.840

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

Authors:  Christopher A Brown; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears.

Authors:  Teresa Y C Ching; Paula Incerti; Mandy Hill
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  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

8.  Syllabic strength and lexical boundary decisions in the perception of hypokinetic dysarthric speech.

Authors:  J M Liss; S Spitzer; J N Caviness; C Adler; B Edwards
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 1.840

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.  The effects of familiarization on intelligibility and lexical segmentation in hypokinetic and ataxic dysarthria.

Authors:  Julie M Liss; Stephanie M Spitzer; John N Caviness; Charles Adler
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  28 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.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  The perception of telephone-processed speech by combined electric and acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Yi Hu; Qudsia Tahmina; Christina Runge; David R Friedland
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2013-11-20

6.  Amplitude fluctuations in a masker influence lexical segmentation in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Trevor T Perry; Bomjun J Kwon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Influences of noise-interruption and information-bearing acoustic changes on understanding simulated electric-acoustic speech.

Authors:  Christian Stilp; Gail Donaldson; Soohee Oh; Ying-Yee Kong
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  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

9.  The role of stress and word size in Spanish speech segmentation.

Authors:  Amy LaCross; Julie Liss; Beatriz Barragan; Ashley Adams; Visar Berisha; Megan McAuliffe; Robert Fromont
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Information from the voice fundamental frequency (F0) region accounts for the majority of the benefit when acoustic stimulation is added to electric stimulation.

Authors:  Ting Zhang; Michael F Dorman; Anthony J Spahr
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.