Literature DB >> 26565786

Shifting Fundamental Frequency in Simulated Electric-Acoustic Listening: Effects of F0 Variation.

Christopher A Brown1, Kate Helms Tillery, Frédéric Apoux, Nicole M Doyle, Sid P Bacon.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Shifting the mean fundamental frequency (F0) of target speech down in frequency may be a way to provide the benefits of electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) to cochlear implant (CI) users whose limited residual hearing precludes a benefit typically, even with amplification. However, previous study showed a decline in the amount of benefit at the greatest downward frequency shifts, and the authors hypothesized that this might be related to F0 variation. Thus, in the present study, the authors sought to determine the relationship between mean F0, F0 variation, and the benefits of combining electric stimulation from a CI with low-frequency residual acoustic hearing.
DESIGN: The authors measured speech intelligibility in normal-hearing listeners using an EAS simulation consisting of a sine vocoder combined either with speech low-pass filtered at 500 Hz, or with a pure tone representing target F0. The authors used extracted target voice pitch information to modulate the tone, and manipulated both the frequency of the carrier (mean F0), as well as the standard deviation of the voice pitch information (F0 variation).
RESULTS: A decline in EAS benefit was observed at the lowest mean F0 tested, but this decline disappeared when F0 variation was reduced to be proportional to the amount of the shift in frequency (i.e., when F0 was shifted logarithmically instead of linearly).
CONCLUSION: Lowering mean F0 by shifting the frequency of a pure tone carrying target voice pitch information can provide as much EAS benefit as an unshifted tone, at least in the current simulation of EAS. These results may have implications for CI users with extremely limited residual acoustic hearing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26565786      PMCID: PMC5063647          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000227

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  22 in total

1.  Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Christopher W Turner; Bruce J Gantz; Corina Vidal; Amy Behrens; Belinda A Henry
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Shifting fundamental frequency in simulated electric-acoustic listening.

Authors:  Christopher A Brown; Nicole M Scherrer; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  The use of frequency compression by cochlear implant recipients with postoperative acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Hugh McDermott; Katherine Henshall
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  Acoustic simulations of combined electric and acoustic hearing (EAS).

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Anthony J Spahr; Philipos C Loizou; Cindy J Dana; Jennifer S Schmidt
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Gender and speaker identification as a function of the number of channels in spectrally reduced speech.

Authors:  Julio Gonzalez; Juan C Oliver
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Processing F0 with cochlear implants: Modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Shu-Chen Peng
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-23       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Psychophysical performance and Mandarin tone recognition in noise by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Chaogang Wei; Keli Cao; Xin Jin; Xiaowei Chen; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Benefit of high-rate envelope cues in vocoder processing: effect of number of channels and spectral region.

Authors:  Michael A Stone; Christian Füllgrabe; Brian C J Moore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Efficacy of linear frequency transposition on consonant identification in quiet and in noise.

Authors:  Francis Kuk; Denise Keenan; Petri Korhonen; Chi-Chuen Lau
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 1.664

10.  Improved speech recognition in noise in simulated binaurally combined acoustic and electric stimulation.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  3 in total

1.  Effect of Dual-Carrier Processing on the Intelligibility of Concurrent Vocoded Sentences.

Authors:  Frédéric Apoux; Brittney L Carter; Eric W Healy
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  [Simulation of speech perception with cochlear implants : Influence of frequency and level of fundamental frequency components with electronic acoustic stimulation].

Authors:  T Rader; H Fastl; U Baumann
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Hey Siri: How Effective are Common Voice Recognition Systems at Recognizing Dysphonic Voices?

Authors:  Matthew L Rohlfing; Daniel P Buckley; Jacquelyn Piraquive; Cara E Stepp; Lauren F Tracy
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2020-09-19       Impact factor: 2.970

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.