Literature DB >> 26233007

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

Gail S Donaldson1, Catherine L Rogers1, Lindsay B Johnson1, Soo Hee Oh1.   

Abstract

A recent study from our laboratory assessed vowel identification in cochlear implant (CI) users, using full /dVd/ syllables and partial (center- and edges-only) syllables with duration cues neutralized [Donaldson, Rogers, Cardenas, Russell, and Hanna (2013). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134, 3021-3028]. CI users' poorer performance for partial syllables as compared to full syllables, and for edges-only syllables as compared to center-only syllables, led to the hypotheses (1) that CI users may rely strongly on vowel duration cues; and (2) that CI users have more limited access to dynamic spectral cues than steady-state spectral cues. The present study tested those hypotheses. Ten CI users and ten young normal hearing (YNH) listeners heard full /dVd/ syllables and modified (center- and edges-only) syllables in which vowel duration cues were either preserved or eliminated. The presence of duration cues significantly improved vowel identification scores in four CI users, suggesting a strong reliance on duration cues. Duration effects were absent for the other CI users and the YNH listeners. On average, CI users and YNH listeners demonstrated similar performance for center-only stimuli and edges-only stimuli having the same total duration of vowel information. However, three CI users demonstrated significantly poorer performance for the edges-only stimuli, indicating apparent deficits of dynamic spectral processing.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26233007      PMCID: PMC4491094          DOI: 10.1121/1.4922173

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


  8 in total

1.  Vowel identification by younger and older listeners: relative effectiveness of vowel edges and vowel centers.

Authors:  Gail S Donaldson; Elizabeth K Talmage; Catherine L Rogers
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  The use of static and dynamic vowel cues by multichannel cochlear implant users.

Authors:  K I Kirk; N Tye-Murray; R R Hurtig
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Vowel recognition via cochlear implants and noise vocoders: effects of formant movement and duration.

Authors:  Paul Iverson; Charlotte A Smith; Bronwen G Evans
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Vowel identification by cochlear implant users: contributions of static and dynamic spectral cues.

Authors:  Gail S Donaldson; Catherine L Rogers; Emily S Cardenas; Benjamin A Russell; Nada H Hanna
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Identification of vowels in "vowelless" syllables.

Authors:  J J Jenkins; W Strange; T R Edman
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1983-11

6.  Dynamic specification of coarticulated vowels.

Authors:  W Strange; J J Jenkins; T L Johnson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  A "rationalized" arcsine transform.

Authors:  G A Studebaker
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1985-09

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

Authors:  Matthew B Winn; Monita Chatterjee; William J Idsardi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.482

  8 in total
  7 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Acoustic Context Alters Vowel Categorization in Perception of Noise-Vocoded Speech.

Authors:  Christian E Stilp
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-03-09

5.  Lexical bias in word recognition by cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Steven P Gianakas; Matthew B Winn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Accuracy and cue use in word segmentation for cochlear-implant listeners and normal-hearing listeners presented vocoded speech.

Authors:  Christopher C Heffner; Brittany N Jaekel; Rochelle S Newman; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2021-10       Impact factor: 2.482

7.  Age-Related Temporal Processing Deficits in Word Segments in Adult Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Zilong Xie; Casey R Gaskins; Maureen J Shader; Sandra Gordon-Salant; Samira Anderson; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.