Literature DB >> 20817081

Recognition of temporally interrupted and spectrally degraded sentences with additional unprocessed low-frequency speech.

Deniz Başkent1, Monita Chatterjee.   

Abstract

Recognition of periodically interrupted sentences (with an interruption rate of 1.5 Hz, 50% duty cycle) was investigated under conditions of spectral degradation, implemented with a noiseband vocoder, with and without additional unprocessed low-pass filtered speech (cutoff frequency 500 Hz). Intelligibility of interrupted speech decreased with increasing spectral degradation. For all spectral degradation conditions, however, adding the unprocessed low-pass filtered speech enhanced the intelligibility. The improvement at 4 and 8 channels was higher than the improvement at 16 and 32 channels: 19% and 8%, on average, respectively. The Articulation Index predicted an improvement of 0.09, in a scale from 0 to 1. Thus, the improvement at poorest spectral degradation conditions was larger than what would be expected from additional speech information. Therefore, the results implied that the fine temporal cues from the unprocessed low-frequency speech, such as the additional voice pitch cues, helped perceptual integration of temporally interrupted and spectrally degraded speech, especially when the spectral degradations were severe. Considering the vocoder processing as a cochlear implant simulation, where implant users' performance is closest to 4 and 8-channel vocoder performance, the results support additional benefit of low-frequency acoustic input in combined electric-acoustic stimulation for perception of temporally degraded speech.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20817081      PMCID: PMC2997937          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2010.08.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  28 in total

1.  Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold.

Authors:  N J Versfeld; L Daalder; J M Festen; T Houtgast
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Holes in hearing.

Authors:  Robert V Shannon; John J Galvin; Deniz Baskent
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2002-06

3.  Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Peggy B Nelson; Su-Hyun Jin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Intelligibility of temporally interrupted speech.

Authors:  G L Powers; C Speaks
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1973-09       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Effects of age on concurrent vowel perception in acoustic and simulated electroacoustic hearing.

Authors:  Kathryn H Arehart; Pamela E Souza; Ramesh Kumar Muralimanohar; Christi Wise Miller
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2010-08-05       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality.

Authors:  H J Steeneken; T Houtgast
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1980-01       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals.

Authors:  C V Pavlovic; G A Studebaker; R L Sherbecoe
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Simulations of tonotopically mapped speech processors for cochlear implant electrodes varying in insertion depth.

Authors:  Andrew Faulkner; Stuart Rosen; Deborah Stanton
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  15 in total

1.  Low-frequency signals support perceptual organization of implant-simulated speech for adults and children.

Authors:  Susan Nittrouer; Eric Tarr; Virginia Bolster; Amanda Caldwell-Tarr; Aaron C Moberly; Joanna H Lowenstein
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 2.117

2.  Spectral and temporal resolutions of information-bearing acoustic changes for understanding vocoded sentences.

Authors:  Christian E Stilp; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  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

4.  Speech perception in simulated electric hearing exploits information-bearing acoustic change.

Authors:  Christian E Stilp; Matthew J Goupell; Keith R Kluender
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Effects of contextual cues on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Gail Donaldson; Ala Somarowthu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  The role of continuous low-frequency harmonicity cues for interrupted speech perception in bimodal hearing.

Authors:  Soo Hee Oh; Gail S Donaldson; Ying-Yee Kong
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Acoustic predictors of intelligibility for segmentally interrupted speech: temporal envelope, voicing, and duration.

Authors:  Daniel Fogerty
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  A model-based analysis of the "combined-stimulation advantage".

Authors:  Fabien Seldran; Christophe Micheyl; Eric Truy; Christian Berger-Vachon; Hung Thai-Van; Stéphane Gallego
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Hearing an illusory vowel in noise: suppression of auditory cortical activity.

Authors:  Lars Riecke; Mieke Vanbussel; Lars Hausfeld; Deniz Başkent; Elia Formisano; Fabrizio Esposito
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Top-Down Processes in Simulated Electric-Acoustic Hearing: The Effect of Linguistic Context on Bimodal Benefit for Temporally Interrupted Speech.

Authors:  Soo Hee Oh; Gail S Donaldson; Ying-Yee Kong
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.