Literature DB >> 24686722

Do adults with cochlear implants rely on different acoustic cues for phoneme perception than adults with normal hearing?

Aaron C Moberly, Joanna H Lowenstein, Eric Tarr, Amanda Caldwell-Tarr, D Bradley Welling, Antoine J Shahin, Susan Nittrouer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE Several acoustic cues specify any single phonemic contrast. Nonetheless, adult, native speakers of a language share weighting strategies, showing preferential attention to some properties over others. Cochlear implant (CI) signal processing disrupts the salience of some cues: In general, amplitude structure remains readily available, but spectral structure less so. This study asked how well speech recognition is supported if CI users shift attention to salient cues not weighted strongly by native speakers. METHOD Twenty adults with CIs participated. The /bɑ/-/wɑ/ contrast was used because spectral and amplitude structure varies in correlated fashion for this contrast. Adults with normal hearing weight the spectral cue strongly but the amplitude cue negligibly. Three measurements were made: labeling decisions, spectral and amplitude discrimination, and word recognition. RESULTS Outcomes varied across listeners: Some weighted the spectral cue strongly, some weighted the amplitude cue, and some weighted neither. Spectral discrimination predicted spectral weighting. Spectral weighting explained the most variance in word recognition. Age of onset of hearing loss predicted spectral weighting but not unique variance in word recognition. CONCLUSION The weighting strategies of listeners with normal hearing likely support speech recognition best, so efforts in implant design, fitting, and training should focus on developing those strategies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24686722      PMCID: PMC4008700          DOI: 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-H-12-0323

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  47 in total

1.  Age-related differences in weighting and masking of two cues to word-final stop voicing in noise.

Authors:  Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition.

Authors:  Li Xu; Catherine S Thompson; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Multiple looks in speech sound discrimination in adults.

Authors:  Rachael Frush Holt; Arlene Earley Carney
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Developmental role of static, dynamic, and contextual cues in speech perception.

Authors:  Candace Bourland Hicks; Ralph N Ohde
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Effect of relative amplitude and formant transitions on perception of place of articulation by adult listeners with cochlear implants.

Authors:  M S Hedrick; A E Carney
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Discriminability and perceptual weighting of some acoustic cues to speech perception by 3-year-olds.

Authors:  S Nittrouer
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1996-04

7.  Predicting developmental shifts in perceptual weighting schemes.

Authors:  S Nittrouer; M E Miller
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Prognostic indicators of speech recognition performance in adult cochlear implant users: a prospective analysis.

Authors:  D B Shipp; J M Nedzelski
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  1995-09

9.  Low-pass filtering in amplitude modulation detection associated with vowel and consonant identification in subjects with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Y Cazals; M Pelizzone; O Saudan; C Boex
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Results of cochlear implantation in patients with severe to profound hearing loss--implications for patient selection.

Authors:  J Kiefer; C von Ilberg; B Reimer; R Knecht; V Gall; G Diller; E Stürzebecher; T Pfennigdorff; A Spelsberg
Journal:  Audiology       Date:  1998 Nov-Dec
View more
  30 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.  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

3.  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

4.  Effects of age and hearing mechanism on spectral resolution in normal hearing and cochlear-implanted listeners.

Authors:  David L Horn; Daniel J Dudley; Kavita Dedhia; Kaibao Nie; Ward R Drennan; Jong Ho Won; Jay T Rubinstein; Lynne A Werner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 5.  The Enigma of Poor Performance by Adults With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Chelsea Bates; Michael S Harris; David B Pisoni
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

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.  The Relationship Between Environmental Sound Awareness and Speech Recognition Skills in Experienced Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Michael S Harris; Lauren Boyce; David B Pisoni; Valeriy Shafiro; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  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

9.  Reliability and Repeatability of the Speech Cue Profile.

Authors:  Pamela Souza; Richard Wright; Frederick Gallun; Paul Reinhart
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Acoustic Cue Weighting by Adults with Cochlear Implants: A Mismatch Negativity Study.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Jyoti Bhat; Antoine J Shahin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.