Literature DB >> 22280613

The relative phonetic contributions of a cochlear implant and residual acoustic hearing to bimodal speech perception.

Benjamin M Sheffield1, Fan-Gang Zeng.   

Abstract

The addition of low-passed (LP) speech or even a tone following the fundamental frequency (F0) of speech has been shown to benefit speech recognition for cochlear implant (CI) users with residual acoustic hearing. The mechanisms underlying this benefit are still unclear. In this study, eight bimodal subjects (CI users with acoustic hearing in the non-implanted ear) and eight simulated bimodal subjects (using vocoded and LP speech) were tested on vowel and consonant recognition to determine the relative contributions of acoustic and phonetic cues, including F0, to the bimodal benefit. Several listening conditions were tested (CI/Vocoder, LP, T(F0-env), CI/Vocoder + LP, CI/Vocoder + T(F0-env)). Compared with CI/Vocoder performance, LP significantly enhanced both consonant and vowel perception, whereas a tone following the F0 contour of target speech and modulated with an amplitude envelope of the maximum frequency of the F0 contour (T(F0-env)) enhanced only consonant perception. Information transfer analysis revealed a dual mechanism in the bimodal benefit: The tone representing F0 provided voicing and manner information, whereas LP provided additional manner, place, and vowel formant information. The data in actual bimodal subjects also showed that the degree of the bimodal benefit depended on the cutoff and slope of residual acoustic hearing.
© 2012 Acoustical Society of America.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22280613      PMCID: PMC3283905          DOI: 10.1121/1.3662074

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


  67 in total

1.  Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody, and talker characteristics in selective attention.

Authors:  C J Darwin; R W Hukin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Consonant recordings for speech testing.

Authors:  R V Shannon; A Jensvold; M Padilla; M E Robert; X Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Contributions of temporal encodings of voicing, voicelessness, fundamental frequency, and amplitude variation to audio-visual and auditory speech perception.

Authors:  A Faulkner; S Rosen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Factors influencing intelligibility of ideal binary-masked speech: implications for noise reduction.

Authors:  Ning Li; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Maximizing effective audibility in hearing aid fitting.

Authors:  T Y Ching; H Dillon; R Katsch; D Byrne
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Consonant confusions in noise: a study of perceptual features.

Authors:  M D Wang; R C Bilger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1973-11       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues.

Authors:  R V Shannon; F G Zeng; V Kamath; J Wygonski; M Ekelid
Journal:  Science       Date:  1995-10-13       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Perceptual integration of acoustic cues for stop, fricative, and affricate manner.

Authors:  B H Repp; A M Liberman; T Eccardt; D Pesetsky
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1978-11       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Bimodal hearing benefit for speech recognition with competing voice in cochlear implant subject with normal hearing in contralateral ear.

Authors:  Helen E Cullington; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Effects of moderate cochlear hearing loss on the ability to benefit from temporal fine structure information in speech.

Authors:  Kathryn Hopkins; Brian C J Moore; Michael A Stone
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  25 in total

1.  Perception of consonants in reverberation and noise by adults fitted with bimodal devices.

Authors:  Michelle Mason; Kostas Kokkinakis
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  The Effects of Acoustic Bandwidth on Simulated Bimodal Benefit in Children and Adults with Normal Hearing.

Authors:  Sterling W Sheffield; Michelle Simha; Kelly N Jahn; René H Gifford
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  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

4.  Factors Affecting Bimodal Benefit in Pediatric Mandarin-Speaking Chinese Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Yang-Wenyi Liu; Duo-Duo Tao; Bing Chen; Xiaoting Cheng; Yilai Shu; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  The Effect of Hearing Aid Bandwidth and Configuration of Hearing Loss on Bimodal Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Arlene C Neuman; Annette Zeman; Jonathan Neukam; Binhuan Wang; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

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.  Segmental and Suprasegmental Perception in Children Using Hearing Aids.

Authors:  Kaitlyn A Wenrich; Lisa S Davidson; Rosalie M Uchanski
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 1.664

8.  Bilateral Cochlear Implantation Versus Bimodal Hearing in Patients With Functional Residual Hearing: A Within-subjects Comparison of Audiologic Performance and Quality of Life.

Authors:  Robert J Yawn; Brendan P O'Connell; Robert T Dwyer; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Susan Reynolds; David S Haynes; René H Gifford
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  The benefits of bimodal hearing: effect of frequency region and acoustic bandwidth.

Authors:  Sterling W Sheffield; René H Gifford
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2014-02-15       Impact factor: 1.854

10.  Effects of insertion depth on spatial speech perception in noise for simulations of cochlear implants and single-sided deafness.

Authors:  Xiaoqing Zhou; Huajun Li; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu; Wei Yuan
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 2.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.