Literature DB >> 25786954

Using speech sounds to test functional spectral resolution in listeners with cochlear implants.

Matthew B Winn1, Ruth Y Litovsky2.   

Abstract

In this study, spectral properties of speech sounds were used to test functional spectral resolution in people who use cochlear implants (CIs). Specifically, perception of the /ba/-/da/ contrast was tested using two spectral cues: Formant transitions (a fine-resolution cue) and spectral tilt (a coarse-resolution cue). Higher weighting of the formant cues was used as an index of better spectral cue perception. Participants included 19 CI listeners and 10 listeners with normal hearing (NH), for whom spectral resolution was explicitly controlled using a noise vocoder with variable carrier filter widths to simulate electrical current spread. Perceptual weighting of the two cues was modeled with mixed-effects logistic regression, and was found to systematically vary with spectral resolution. The use of formant cues was greatest for NH listeners for unprocessed speech, and declined in the two vocoded conditions. Compared to NH listeners, CI listeners relied less on formant transitions, and more on spectral tilt. Cue-weighting results showed moderately good correspondence with word recognition scores. The current approach to testing functional spectral resolution uses auditory cues that are known to be important for speech categorization, and can thus potentially serve as the basis upon which CI processing strategies and innovations are tested.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25786954      PMCID: PMC4368591          DOI: 10.1121/1.4908308

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


  48 in total

1.  Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  F G Zeng; J J Galvin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.570

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

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Joanna H Lowenstein; Eric Tarr; Amanda Caldwell-Tarr; D Bradley Welling; Antoine J Shahin; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  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

5.  Spectral modulation detection and vowel and consonant identifications in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Aniket A Saoji; Leonid Litvak; Anthony J Spahr; David A Eddins
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants.

Authors:  M F Dorman; P C Loizou
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1997-11

7.  Perception of synthetic speech produced automatically by rule: Intelligibility of eight text-to-speech systems.

Authors:  Beth G Greene; John S Logan; David B Pisoni
Journal:  Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput       Date:  1986-03

8.  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

9.  Phonetic trading relations and context effects: new experimental evidence for a speech mode of perception.

Authors:  B H Repp
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 17.737

10.  The role of temporal and dynamic signal components in the perception of syllable-final stop voicing by children and adults.

Authors:  Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  26 in total

1.  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

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.  Evaluating the sources and functions of gradiency in phoneme categorization: An individual differences approach.

Authors:  Efthymia C Kapnoula; Matthew B Winn; Eun Jong Kong; Jan Edwards; Bob McMurray
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 3.332

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

5.  Comparison of the Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test With the Arizona Biomedical Institute Sentence Test in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Marshall Lawler; Jeffrey Yu; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  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

7.  Intensity Discrimination and Speech Recognition of Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Colette M McKay; Natalie Rickard; Katherine Henshall
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-05-17

8.  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

9.  Spectral contrast effects produced by competing speech contexts.

Authors:  Lei Feng; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.