Literature DB >> 35937542

Audibility emphasis of low-level sounds improves consonant identification while preserving vowel identification for cochlear implant users.

Raymond L Goldsworthy1, Susan R S Bissmeyer1,2, Jayaganesh Swaminathan3,4.   

Abstract

Consonant perception is challenging for listeners with hearing loss, and transmission of speech over communication channels further deteriorates the acoustics of consonants. Part of the challenge arises from the short-term low energy spectro-temporal profile of consonants (for example, relative to vowels). We hypothesized that an audibility enhancement approach aimed at boosting the energy of low-level sounds would improve identification of consonants without diminishing vowel identification. We tested this hypothesis with 11 cochlear implant users, who completed an online listening experiment remotely using the media device and implant settings that they most commonly use when making video calls. Loudness growth and detection thresholds were measured for pure tone stimuli to characterize the relative loudness of test conditions. Consonant and vowel identification were measured in quiet and in speech-shaped noise for progressively difficult signal-to-noise ratios (+12, +6, 0, -6 dB SNR). These conditions were tested with and without an audibility-emphasis algorithm designed to enhance consonant identification at the source. The results show that the algorithm improves consonant identification in noise for cochlear implant users without diminishing vowel identification. We conclude that low-level emphasis of audio can improve speech recognition for cochlear implant users in the case of video calls or other telecommunications where the target speech can be preprocessed separately from environmental noise.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Speech comprehension; cochlear implants; compression; consonant enhancement

Year:  2022        PMID: 35937542      PMCID: PMC9351334          DOI: 10.1016/j.specom.2022.01.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Speech Commun        ISSN: 0167-6393            Impact factor:   2.723


  30 in total

1.  Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.

Authors:  L M Friesen; R V Shannon; D Baskent; X Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Correlations Between Pitch and Phoneme Perception in Cochlear Implant Users and Their Normal Hearing Peers.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-09-15

3.  Perceptual consequences of disrupted auditory nerve activity.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Ying-Yee Kong; Henry J Michalewski; Arnold Starr
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2004-12-22       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Practical model description of peripheral neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: 3. ECAP during bursts and loudness as function of burst duration.

Authors:  Lawrence T Cohen
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-11-27       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Temporal Response Properties of the Auditory Nerve in Implanted Children with Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder and Implanted Children with Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Shuman He; Paul J Abbas; Danielle V Doyle; Tyler C McFayden; Stephen Mulherin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Acoustic temporal modulation detection and speech perception in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Ward R Drennan; Kaibao Nie; Elyse M Jameyson; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Masking release for hearing-impaired listeners: The effect of increased audibility through reduction of amplitude variability.

Authors:  Joseph G Desloge; Charlotte M Reed; Louis D Braida; Zachary D Perez; Laura A D'Aquila
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Spoken language development in children following cochlear implantation.

Authors:  John K Niparko; Emily A Tobey; Donna J Thal; Laurie S Eisenberg; Nae-Yuh Wang; Alexandra L Quittner; Nancy E Fink
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-04-21       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels.

Authors:  J Hillenbrand; L A Getty; M J Clark; K Wheeler
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 10.  Animal models of auditory temporal processing.

Authors:  Jos J Eggermont
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 2.997

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.