Literature DB >> 32006986

Accommodation of gender-related phonetic differences by listeners with cochlear implants and in a variety of vocoder simulations.

Matthew B Winn1.   

Abstract

Speech perception requires accommodation of a wide range of acoustic variability across talkers. A classic example is the perception of "sh" and "s" fricative sounds, which are categorized according to spectral details of the consonant itself, and also by the context of the voice producing it. Because women's and men's voices occupy different frequency ranges, a listener is required to make a corresponding adjustment of acoustic-phonetic category space for these phonemes when hearing different talkers. This pattern is commonplace in everyday speech communication, and yet might not be captured in accuracy scores for whole words, especially when word lists are spoken by a single talker. Phonetic accommodation for fricatives "s" and "sh" was measured in 20 cochlear implant (CI) users and in a variety of vocoder simulations, including those with noise carriers with and without peak picking, simulated spread of excitation, and pulsatile carriers. CI listeners showed strong phonetic accommodation as a group. Each vocoder produced phonetic accommodation except the 8-channel noise vocoder, despite its historically good match with CI users in word intelligibility. Phonetic accommodation is largely independent of linguistic factors and thus might offer information complementary to speech intelligibility tests which are partially affected by language processing.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32006986      PMCID: PMC7341679          DOI: 10.1121/10.0000566

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


  59 in total

1.  Word Recognition Variability With Cochlear Implants: "Perceptual Attention" Versus "Auditory Sensitivity".

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Joanna H Lowenstein; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Relationship between perception of spectral ripple and speech recognition in cochlear implant and vocoder listeners.

Authors:  Leonid M Litvak; Anthony J Spahr; Aniket A Saoji; Gene Y Fridman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests.

Authors:  G E PETERSON; I LEHISTE
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1962-02

4.  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

5.  Listening effort with cochlear implant simulations.

Authors:  Carina Pals; Anastasios Sarampalis; Deniz Baskent
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Arthi G Srinivasan; Monica Padilla; Robert V Shannon; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Assessing the Electrode-Neuron Interface with the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential, Electrode Position, and Behavioral Thresholds.

Authors:  Lindsay DeVries; Rachel Scheperle; Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-29

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

Authors:  Matthew B Winn; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Reducing current spread using current focusing in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Monica Padilla; Arthi G Srinivasan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Discrimination of Voice Pitch and Vocal-Tract Length in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Etienne Gaudrain; Deniz Başkent
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  2 in total

1.  Perceptual weighting of acoustic cues for accommodating gender-related talker differences heard by listeners with normal hearing and with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Matthew B Winn; Ashley N Moore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Strategic perceptual weighting of acoustic cues for word stress in listeners with cochlear implants, acoustic hearing, or simulated bimodal hearing.

Authors:  Justin T Fleming; Matthew B Winn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-09       Impact factor: 2.482

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.