Purpose: Normal-hearing (NH) listeners rate normalize, temporarily remapping phonemic category boundaries to account for a talker's speech rate. It is unknown if adults who use auditory prostheses called cochlear implants (CI) can rate normalize, as CIs transmit degraded speech signals to the auditory nerve. Ineffective adjustment to rate information could explain some of the variability in this population's speech perception outcomes. Method: Phonemes with manipulated voice-onset-time (VOT) durations were embedded in sentences with different speech rates. Twenty-three CI and 29 NH participants performed a phoneme identification task. NH participants heard the same unprocessed stimuli as the CI participants or stimuli degraded by a sine vocoder, simulating aspects of CI processing. Results: CI participants showed larger rate normalization effects (6.6 ms) than the NH participants (3.7 ms) and had shallower (less reliable) category boundary slopes. NH participants showed similarly shallow slopes when presented acoustically degraded vocoded signals, but an equal or smaller rate effect in response to reductions in available spectral and temporal information. Conclusion: CI participants can rate normalize, despite their degraded speech input, and show a larger rate effect compared to NH participants. CI participants may particularly rely on rate normalization to better maintain perceptual constancy of the speech signal.
Purpose: Normal-hearing (NH) listeners rate normalize, temporarily remapping phonemic category boundaries to account for a talker's speech rate. It is unknown if adults who use auditory prostheses called cochlear implants (CI) can rate normalize, as CIs transmit degraded speech signals to the auditory nerve. Ineffective adjustment to rate information could explain some of the variability in this population's speech perception outcomes. Method: Phonemes with manipulated voice-onset-time (VOT) durations were embedded in sentences with different speech rates. Twenty-three CI and 29 NH participants performed a phoneme identification task. NH participants heard the same unprocessed stimuli as the CI participants or stimuli degraded by a sine vocoder, simulating aspects of CI processing. Results: CI participants showed larger rate normalization effects (6.6 ms) than the NH participants (3.7 ms) and had shallower (less reliable) category boundary slopes. NH participants showed similarly shallow slopes when presented acoustically degraded vocoded signals, but an equal or smaller rate effect in response to reductions in available spectral and temporal information. Conclusion: CI participants can rate normalize, despite their degraded speech input, and show a larger rate effect compared to NH participants. CI participants may particularly rely on rate normalization to better maintain perceptual constancy of the speech signal.
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
Authors: Margaret W Skinner; Darlene R Ketten; Laura K Holden; Gary W Harding; Peter G Smith; George A Gates; J Gail Neely; G Robert Kletzker; Barry Brunsden; Barbara Blocker Journal: J Assoc Res Otolaryngol Date: 2002-02-27