Literature DB >> 20707456

Simulations of cochlear-implant speech perception in modulated and unmodulated noise.

Antje Ihlefeld1, John M Deeks, Patrick R Axon, Robert P Carlyon.   

Abstract

Experiment 1 replicated the finding that normal-hearing listeners identify speech better in modulated than in unmodulated noise. This modulated-unmodulated difference ("MUD") has been previously shown to be reduced or absent for cochlear-implant listeners and for normal-hearing listeners presented with noise-vocoded speech. Experiments 2-3 presented normal-hearing listeners with noise-vocoded speech in unmodulated or 16-Hz-square-wave modulated noise, and investigated whether the introduction of simple binaural differences between target and masker could restore the masking release. Stimuli were presented over headphones. When the target and masker were presented to one ear, adding a copy of the masker to the other ear ("diotic configuration") aided performance but did so to a similar degree for modulated and unmodulated maskers, thereby failing to improve the modulation masking release. Presenting an uncorrelated noise to the opposite ear ("dichotic configuration") had no effect, either for modulated or unmodulated maskers, consistent with the improved performance in the diotic configuration being due to interaural decorrelation processing. For noise-vocoded speech, the provision of simple spatial differences did not allow listeners to take greater advantage of the dips present in a modulated masker.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20707456     DOI: 10.1121/1.3458817

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


  7 in total

1.  Intelligibility of whispered speech in stationary and modulated noise maskers.

Authors:  Richard L Freyman; Amanda M Griffin; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Toddlers' recognition of noise-vocoded speech.

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

3.  Toddlers' fast-mapping from noise-vocoded speech.

Authors:  Rochelle S Newman; Giovanna Morini; Emily Shroads; Monita Chatterjee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Comodulation masking release in speech identification with real and simulated cochlear-implant hearing.

Authors:  Antje Ihlefeld; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Using Zebra-speech to study sequential and simultaneous speech segregation in a cochlear-implant simulation.

Authors:  Etienne Gaudrain; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Interaural level differences do not suffice for restoring spatial release from masking in simulated cochlear implant listening.

Authors:  Antje Ihlefeld; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-20       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  The contribution of visual information to the perception of speech in noise with and without informative temporal fine structure.

Authors:  Paula C Stacey; Pádraig T Kitterick; Saffron D Morris; Christian J Sumner
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-04-13       Impact factor: 3.208

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.