Literature DB >> 22352517

The use of acoustic cues for phonetic identification: effects of spectral degradation and electric hearing.

Matthew B Winn1, Monita Chatterjee, William J Idsardi.   

Abstract

Although some cochlear implant (CI) listeners can show good word recognition accuracy, it is not clear how they perceive and use the various acoustic cues that contribute to phonetic perceptions. In this study, the use of acoustic cues was assessed for normal-hearing (NH) listeners in optimal and spectrally degraded conditions, and also for CI listeners. Two experiments tested the tense/lax vowel contrast (varying in formant structure, vowel-inherent spectral change, and vowel duration) and the word-final fricative voicing contrast (varying in F1 transition, vowel duration, consonant duration, and consonant voicing). Identification results were modeled using mixed-effects logistic regression. These experiments suggested that under spectrally-degraded conditions, NH listeners decrease their use of formant cues and increase their use of durational cues. Compared to NH listeners, CI listeners showed decreased use of spectral cues like formant structure and formant change and consonant voicing, and showed greater use of durational cues (especially for the fricative contrast). The results suggest that although NH and CI listeners may show similar accuracy on basic tests of word, phoneme or feature recognition, they may be using different perceptual strategies in the process.
© 2012 Acoustical Society of America

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22352517      PMCID: PMC3292615          DOI: 10.1121/1.3672705

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   2.482


  58 in total

1.  Synthesis fidelity and time-varying spectral change in vowels.

Authors:  Peter F Assmann; William F Katz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Acoustic and perceptual characteristics of voicing in fricatives and fricative clusters.

Authors:  K N Stevens; S E Blumstein; L Glicksman; M Burton; K Kurowski
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Cue weighting in auditory categorization: implications for first and second language acquisition.

Authors:  Lori L Holt; Andrew J Lotto
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Detection of gaps in sinusoids and pulse trains by patients with cochlear implants.

Authors:  R V Shannon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  FO gives voicing information even with unambiguous voice onset times.

Authors:  D H Whalen; A S Abramson; L Lisker; M Mody
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  The contribution of vowel duration, F0 contour, and frication duration as cues to the /juz/-/jus/ distinction.

Authors:  M A Derr; D W Massaro
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1980-01

7.  Identification of resynthesized /hVd/ utterances: effects of formant contour.

Authors:  J M Hillenbrand; T M Nearey
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Cue integration with categories: Weighting acoustic cues in speech using unsupervised learning and distributional statistics.

Authors:  Joseph C Toscano; Bob McMurray
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2010-04

Review 9.  Cochlear implants: system design, integration, and evaluation.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Stephen Rebscher; William Harrison; Xiaoan Sun; Haihong Feng
Journal:  IEEE Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2008-11-05

10.  Effects of cooperating and conflicting cues on speech intonation recognition by cochlear implant users and normal hearing listeners.

Authors:  Shu-Chen Peng; Nelson Lu; Monita Chatterjee
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2009-04-15       Impact factor: 1.854

View more
  45 in total

1.  Word Recognition Variability With Cochlear Implants: "Perceptual Attention" Versus "Auditory Sensitivity".

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Joanna H Lowenstein; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Vowel identification by cochlear implant users: Contributions of duration cues and dynamic spectral cues.

Authors:  Gail S Donaldson; Catherine L Rogers; Lindsay B Johnson; Soo Hee Oh
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Assessment of Spectral and Temporal Resolution in Cochlear Implant Users Using Psychoacoustic Discrimination and Speech Cue Categorization.

Authors:  Matthew B Winn; Jong Ho Won; Il Joon Moon
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Effects of Age and Cochlear Implantation on Spectrally Cued Speech Categorization.

Authors:  Mishaela DiNino; Julie G Arenberg; Anne L R Duchen; Matthew B Winn
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  The Effect of Residual Acoustic Hearing and Adaptation to Uncertainty on Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users: Evidence From Eye-Tracking.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Ashley Farris-Trimble; Michael Seedorff; Hannah Rigler
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  How Do You Deal With Uncertainty? Cochlear Implant Users Differ in the Dynamics of Lexical Processing of Noncanonical Inputs.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Tyler P Ellis; Keith S Apfelbaum
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Speech Rate Normalization and Phonemic Boundary Perception in Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Brittany N Jaekel; Rochelle S Newman; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Contribution of formant frequency information to vowel perception in steady-state noise by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Elad Sagi; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Effects of spectral resolution on spectral contrast effects in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Lei Feng; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Age-Related Differences in the Processing of Temporal Envelope and Spectral Cues in a Speech Segment.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Casey R Gaskins; Maureen J Shader; Erin P Walter; Samira Anderson; Sandra Gordon-Salant
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.