Literature DB >> 23429419

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

Ray L Goldsworthy1, Lorraine A Delhorne, Louis D Braida, Charlotte M Reed.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify precise and repeatable measures for assessing cochlear-implant (CI) hearing. The study presents psychoacoustic and phoneme identification measures in CI and normal-hearing (NH) listeners, with correlations between measures examined. Psychoacoustic measures included pitch discrimination tasks using pure tones, harmonic complexes, and tone pips; intensity perception tasks included intensity discrimination for tones and modulation detection; spectral-temporal masking tasks included gap detection, forward and backward masking, tone-on-tone masking, synthetic formant-on-formant masking, and tone in noise detection. Phoneme perception measures included vowel and consonant identification in quiet and stationary and temporally gated speech-shaped noise. Results on psychoacoustic measures illustrate the effects of broader filtering in CI hearing contributing to reduced pitch perception and increased spectral masking. Results on consonant and vowel identification measures illustrate a wide range in performance across CI listeners. They also provide further evidence that CI listeners obtain little to no release of masking in temporally gated noise compared to stationary noise. The forward and backward-masking measures had the highest correlation with the phoneme identification measures for CI listeners. No significant correlations between speech reception and psychoacoustic measures were observed for NH listeners. The superior NH performance on measures of phoneme identification, especially in the presence of background noise, is a key difference between groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23429419      PMCID: PMC4040862          DOI: 10.1177/1084713813477244

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Amplif        ISSN: 1084-7138


  42 in total

1.  Temporal processing in the aging auditory system.

Authors:  A Strouse; D H Ashmead; R N Ohde; D W Grantham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Gap detection by early-deafened cochlear-implant subjects.

Authors:  P A Busby; G M Clark
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; Geraldine Nogaki
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-04-22

4.  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

5.  Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Belinda A Henry; Christopher W Turner; Amy Behrens
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Influence of musical and psychoacoustical training on pitch discrimination.

Authors:  Christophe Micheyl; Karine Delhommeau; Xavier Perrot; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-07-12       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Relationship between perception of spectral ripple and speech recognition in cochlear implant and vocoder listeners.

Authors:  Leonid M Litvak; Anthony J Spahr; Aniket A Saoji; Gene Y Fridman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Ward R Drennan; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-06-21

9.  Individual differences in auditory abilities.

Authors:  Gary R Kidd; Charles S Watson; Brian Gygi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing.

Authors:  Q J Fu; R V Shannon; X Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  14 in total

1.  Correlations Between Pitch and Phoneme Perception in Cochlear Implant Users and Their Normal Hearing Peers.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-09-15

2.  Predicting Speech Recognition Using the Speech Intelligibility Index and Other Variables for Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Sungmin Lee; Lisa Lucks Mendel; Gavin M Bidelman
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Two-microphone spatial filtering provides speech reception benefits for cochlear implant users in difficult acoustic environments.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy; Lorraine A Delhorne; Joseph G Desloge; Louis D Braida
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Speech masking release in Hybrid cochlear implant users: Roles of spectral and temporal cues in electric-acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Viral D Tejani; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Voice Discrimination by Adults with Cochlear Implants: the Benefits of Early Implantation for Vocal-Tract Length Perception.

Authors:  Yael Zaltz; Raymond L Goldsworthy; Liat Kishon-Rabin; Laurie S Eisenberg
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-01-08

6.  Amplitude modulation detection and temporal modulation cutoff frequency in normal hearing infants.

Authors:  Brian A Walker; Caitlin M Gerhards; Lynne A Werner; David L Horn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Audibility emphasis of low-level sounds improves consonant identification while preserving vowel identification for cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy; Susan R S Bissmeyer; Jayaganesh Swaminathan
Journal:  Speech Commun       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 2.723

8.  Computational Modeling of Synchrony in the Auditory Nerve in Response to Acoustic and Electric Stimulation.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 3.387

9.  Advantages of Pulse Rate Compared to Modulation Frequency for Temporal Pitch Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy; Susan R S Bissmeyer; Andres Camarena
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-01-03

10.  Pitch perception is more robust to interference and better resolved when provided by pulse rate than by modulation frequency of cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy; Andres Camarena; Susan R S Bissmeyer
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2021-07-24       Impact factor: 3.672

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.