Literature DB >> 30456730

Speech Perception with Spectrally Non-overlapping Maskers as Measure of Spectral Resolution in Cochlear Implant Users.

Erin R O'Neill1, Heather A Kreft2, Andrew J Oxenham2.   

Abstract

Poor spectral resolution contributes to the difficulties experienced by cochlear implant (CI) users when listening to speech in noise. However, correlations between measures of spectral resolution and speech perception in noise have not always been found to be robust. It may be that the relationship between spectral resolution and speech perception in noise becomes clearer in conditions where the speech and noise are not spectrally matched, so that improved spectral resolution can assist in separating the speech from the masker. To test this prediction, speech intelligibility was measured with noise or tone maskers that were presented either in the same spectral channels as the speech or in interleaved spectral channels. Spectral resolution was estimated via a spectral ripple discrimination task. Results from vocoder simulations in normal-hearing listeners showed increasing differences in speech intelligibility between spectrally overlapped and interleaved maskers as well as improved spectral ripple discrimination with increasing spectral resolution. However, no clear differences were observed in CI users between performance with spectrally interleaved and overlapped maskers, or between tone and noise maskers. The results suggest that spectral resolution in current CIs is too poor to take advantage of the spectral separation produced by spectrally interleaved speech and maskers. Overall, the spectrally interleaved and tonal maskers produce a much larger difference in performance between normal-hearing listeners and CI users than do traditional speech-in-noise measures, and thus provide a more sensitive test of speech perception abilities for current and future implantable devices.

Keywords:  current spread; masking release; spectral separation; speech in noise

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30456730      PMCID: PMC6453996          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-018-00702-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1438-7573


  44 in total

1.  Spectral modulation masking patterns reveal tuning to spectral envelope frequency.

Authors:  Aniket A Saoji; David A Eddins
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Simulating the effect of spread of excitation in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Mohamed Bingabr; Blas Espinoza-Varas; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-05-10       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Auditory-filter characteristics derived from direct-masking data and pulsation-threshold data with a rippled-noise masker.

Authors:  T Houtgast
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1977-08       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Assessing the role of spectral and intensity cues in spectral ripple detection and discrimination in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Anderson; Andrew J Oxenham; Peggy B Nelson; David A Nelson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  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

6.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise.

Authors:  M Nilsson; S D Soli; J A Sullivan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Factors Affecting Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients Implanted With a Perimodiolar Electrode Array Located in Scala Tympani.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Rosalie M Uchanski; Noël Y Dwyer; Timothy A Holden
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels.

Authors:  M F Dorman; P C Loizou; J Fitzke; Z Tu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Spectrotemporal modulation sensitivity as a predictor of speech intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  Joshua G W Bernstein; Golbarg Mehraei; Shihab Shamma; Frederick J Gallun; Sarah M Theodoroff; Marjorie R Leek
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.664

10.  Speech perception in tones and noise via cochlear implants reveals influence of spectral resolution on temporal processing.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham; Heather A Kreft
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 3.293

View more
  10 in total

1.  The Perception of Multiple Simultaneous Pitches as a Function of Number of Spectral Channels and Spectral Spread in a Noise-Excited Envelope Vocoder.

Authors:  Anahita H Mehta; Hao Lu; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-02-11

2.  Spectral Contrast Effects Reveal Different Acoustic Cues for Vowel Recognition in Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Lei Feng; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Distortion of Spectral Ripples Through Cochlear Implants Has Major Implications for Interpreting Performance Scores.

Authors:  Matthew B Winn; Gabrielle O'Brien
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2022 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.562

4.  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

5.  Access to semantic cues does not lead to perceptual restoration of interrupted speech in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Brittany N Jaekel; Sarah Weinstein; Rochelle S Newman; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Role of semantic context and talker variability in speech perception of cochlear-implant users and normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Erin R O'Neill; Morgan N Parke; Heather A Kreft; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 7.  Electro-Haptic Stimulation: A New Approach for Improving Cochlear-Implant Listening.

Authors:  Mark D Fletcher; Carl A Verschuur
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 4.677

8.  Cognitive factors contribute to speech perception in cochlear-implant users and age-matched normal-hearing listeners under vocoded conditions.

Authors:  Erin R O'Neill; Heather A Kreft; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Spectrotemporal Modulation Sensitivity in Cochlear-Implant and Normal-Hearing Listeners: Is the Performance Driven by Temporal or Spectral Modulation Sensitivity?

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Susannah Dixon; Zhen Zhu; Lixue Dong; Marti Weiner
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

10.  Investigating the Electrical Properties of Different Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Nol Swaddiwudhipong; Chen Jiang; Thomas G Landry; Manohar Bance
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.619

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.