Literature DB >> 19603890

Factors affecting masking release in cochlear-implant vocoded speech.

Ning Li1, Philipos C Loizou.   

Abstract

Cochlear-implant (CI) listeners generally perform better when listening to speech in steady-state noise than in fluctuating maskers, and the reasons for that are unclear. The present study presents a new hypothesis for the observed absence of release from masking. When listening to speech in fluctuating maskers (e.g., competing talkers), CI users cannot fuse the pieces of the message over temporal gaps because they are not able to perceive reliably the acoustic landmarks introduced by obstruent consonants (e.g., stops). These landmarks are evident in spectral discontinuities associated with consonant closures and releases and are posited to aid listeners determine word/syllable boundaries. To test this hypothesis, normal-hearing (NH) listeners were presented with vocoded (6-22 channels) sentences containing clean obstruent segments, but corrupted (by steady noise or fluctuating maskers) sonorant segments (e.g., vowels). Results indicated that NH listeners performed better with fluctuating maskers than with steady noise even when speech was vocoded into six channels. This outcome suggests that having access to the acoustic landmarks provided by the obstruent consonants enables listeners to integrate effectively pieces of the message glimpsed over temporal gaps into one coherent speech stream.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19603890      PMCID: PMC2723903          DOI: 10.1121/1.3133702

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


  22 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.  Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features.

Authors:  Kenneth N Stevens
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Phonetic identification in quiet and in noise by listeners with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Benjamin Munson; Peggy B Nelson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  The influence of noise on vowel and consonant cues.

Authors:  Gaurang Parikh; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Effects of cochlear implant processing and fundamental frequency on the intelligibility of competing sentences.

Authors:  Ginger S Stickney; Peter F Assmann; Janice Chang; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Consonant and vowel confusions in speech-weighted noise.

Authors:  Sandeep A Phatak; Jont B Allen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Use of S-shaped input-output functions for noise suppression in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Kalyan Kasturi; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  A probabilistic framework for landmark detection based on phonetic features for automatic speech recognition.

Authors:  Amit Juneja; Carol Espy-Wilson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects.

Authors:  Helen E Cullington; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  The contribution of obstruent consonants and acoustic landmarks to speech recognition in noise.

Authors:  Ning Li; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Masking release and the contribution of obstruent consonants on speech recognition in noise by cochlear implant users.

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

3.  The intelligibility of noise-vocoded speech: spectral information available from across-channel comparison of amplitude envelopes.

Authors:  Brian Roberts; Robert J Summers; Peter J Bailey
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Modulation masking and glimpsing of natural and vocoded speech during single-talker modulated noise: Effect of the modulation spectrum.

Authors:  Daniel Fogerty; Jiaqian Xu; Bobby E Gibbs
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Psychoacoustic and phoneme identification measures in cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Ray L Goldsworthy; Lorraine A Delhorne; Louis D Braida; Charlotte M Reed
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2013-02-21

6.  VALIDATION OF ACOUSTIC MODELS OF AUDITORY NEURAL PROSTHESES.

Authors:  Mario A Svirsky; Nai Ding; Elad Sagi; Chin-Tuan Tan; Matthew Fitzgerald; E Katelyn Glassman; Keena Seward; Arlene C Neuman
Journal:  Proc IEEE Int Conf Acoust Speech Signal Process       Date:  2013-05

7.  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

8.  THE PSYCHOPHYSICS OF LOW-FREQUENCY ACOUSTIC HEARING IN ELECTRIC AND ACOUSTIC STIMULATION (EAS) AND BIMODAL PATIENTS.

Authors:  Rene H Gifford; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  J Hear Sci       Date:  2012-05-01

Review 9.  Variations in the slope of the psychometric functions for speech intelligibility: a systematic survey.

Authors:  Alexandra MacPherson; Michael A Akeroyd
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2014-06-06       Impact factor: 3.293

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.