Literature DB >> 33795617

Individual Variability in Recalibrating to Spectrally Shifted Speech: Implications for Cochlear Implants.

Michael L Smith1, Matthew B Winn2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Cochlear implant (CI) recipients are at a severe disadvantage compared with normal-hearing listeners in distinguishing consonants that differ by place of articulation because the key relevant spectral differences are degraded by the implant. One component of that degradation is the upward shifting of spectral energy that occurs with a shallow insertion depth of a CI. The present study aimed to systematically measure the effects of spectral shifting on word recognition and phoneme categorization by specifically controlling the amount of shifting and using stimuli whose identification specifically depends on perceiving frequency cues. We hypothesized that listeners would be biased toward perceiving phonemes that contain higher-frequency components because of the upward frequency shift and that intelligibility would decrease as spectral shifting increased.
DESIGN: Normal-hearing listeners (n = 15) heard sine wave-vocoded speech with simulated upward frequency shifts of 0, 2, 4, and 6 mm of cochlear space to simulate shallow CI insertion depth. Stimuli included monosyllabic words and /b/-/d/ and /∫/-/s/ continua that varied systematically by formant frequency transitions or frication noise spectral peaks, respectively. Recalibration to spectral shifting was operationally defined as shifting perceptual acoustic-phonetic mapping commensurate with the spectral shift. In other words, adjusting frequency expectations for both phonemes upward so that there is still a perceptual distinction, rather than hearing all upward-shifted phonemes as the higher-frequency member of the pair.
RESULTS: For moderate amounts of spectral shifting, group data suggested a general "halfway" recalibration to spectral shifting, but individual data suggested a notably different conclusion: half of the listeners were able to recalibrate fully, while the other halves of the listeners were utterly unable to categorize shifted speech with any reliability. There were no participants who demonstrated a pattern intermediate to these two extremes. Intelligibility of words decreased with greater amounts of spectral shifting, also showing loose clusters of better- and poorer-performing listeners. Phonetic analysis of word errors revealed certain cues were more susceptible to being compromised due to a frequency shift (place and manner of articulation), while voicing was robust to spectral shifting.
CONCLUSIONS: Shifting the frequency spectrum of speech has systematic effects that are in line with known properties of speech acoustics, but the ensuing difficulties cannot be predicted based on tonotopic mismatch alone. Difficulties are subject to substantial individual differences in the capacity to adjust acoustic-phonetic mapping. These results help to explain why speech recognition in CI listeners cannot be fully predicted by peripheral factors like electrode placement and spectral resolution; even among listeners with functionally equivalent auditory input, there is an additional factor of simply being able or unable to flexibly adjust acoustic-phonetic mapping. This individual variability could motivate precise treatment approaches guided by an individual's relative reliance on wideband frequency representation (even if it is mismatched) or limited frequency coverage whose tonotopy is preserved.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33795617      PMCID: PMC8387328          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.562


  55 in total

1.  Auditory skills and brain morphology predict individual differences in adaptation to degraded speech.

Authors:  Julia Erb; Molly J Henry; Frank Eisner; Jonas Obleser
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2012-05-18       Impact factor: 3.139

2.  Evaluating the sources and functions of gradiency in phoneme categorization: An individual differences approach.

Authors:  Efthymia C Kapnoula; Matthew B Winn; Eun Jong Kong; Jan Edwards; Bob McMurray
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests.

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

4.  The brain dynamics of rapid perceptual adaptation to adverse listening conditions.

Authors:  Julia Erb; Molly J Henry; Frank Eisner; Jonas Obleser
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-06-26       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Reducing Simulated Channel Interaction Reveals Differences in Phoneme Identification Between Children and Adults With Normal Hearing.

Authors:  Kelly N Jahn; Mishaela DiNino; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Feasibility of real-time selection of frequency tables in an acoustic simulation of a cochlear implant.

Authors:  Matthew B Fitzgerald; Elad Sagi; Tasnim A Morbiwala; Chin-Tuan Tan; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Auditory training with spectrally shifted speech: implications for cochlear implant patient auditory rehabilitation.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; Geraldine Nogaki; John J Galvin
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-06-10

8.  Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interfaces: electrically evoked auditory brain stem responses measured with the partial tripolar configuration.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; Kathleen F Faulkner; Kelly L Tremblay
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Charles C Finley; Jill B Firszt; Timothy A Holden; Christine Brenner; Lisa G Potts; Brenda D Gotter; Sallie S Vanderhoof; Karen Mispagel; Gitry Heydebrand; Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time.

Authors:  Diane S Lazard; Christophe Vincent; Frédéric Venail; Paul Van de Heyning; Eric Truy; Olivier Sterkers; Piotr H Skarzynski; Henryk Skarzynski; Karen Schauwers; Stephen O'Leary; Deborah Mawman; Bert Maat; Andrea Kleine-Punte; Alexander M Huber; Kevin Green; Paul J Govaerts; Bernard Fraysse; Richard Dowell; Norbert Dillier; Elaine Burke; Andy Beynon; François Bergeron; Deniz Başkent; Françoise Artières; Peter J Blamey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-09       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.