Literature DB >> 3624640

Vowel and consonant recognition of cochlear implant patients using formant-estimating speech processors.

P J Blamey, R C Dowell, A M Brown, G M Clark, P M Seligman.   

Abstract

Vowel and consonant confusion matrices were collected in the hearing alone (H), lipreading alone (L), and hearing plus lipreading (HL) conditions for 28 patients participating in the clinical trial of the multiple-channel cochlear implant. All patients were profound-to-totally deaf and "hearing" refers to the presentation of auditory information via the implant. The average scores were 49% for vowels and 37% for consonants in the H condition and the HL scores were significantly higher than the L scores. Information transmission and multidimensional scaling analyses showed that different speech features were conveyed at different levels in the H and L conditions. In the HL condition, the visual and auditory signals provided independent information sources for each feature. For vowels, the auditory signal was the major source of duration information, while the visual signal was the major source of first and second formant frequency information. The implant provided information about the amplitude envelope of the speech and the estimated frequency of the main spectral peak between 800 and 4000 Hz, which was useful for consonant recognition. A speech processor that coded the estimated frequency and amplitude of an additional peak between 300 and 1000 Hz was shown to increase the vowel and consonant recognition in the H condition by improving the transmission of first formant and voicing information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3624640     DOI: 10.1121/1.395436

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


  6 in total

1.  Perception and production of /r/ allophones improve with hearing from a cochlear implant.

Authors:  Melanie L Matthies; Frank H Guenther; Margaret Denny; Joseph S Perkell; Ellen Burton; Jennell Vick; Harlan Lane; Mark Tiede; Majid Zandipour
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Effects of Phonotactic Probabilities on the Processing of Spoken Words and Nonwords by Adults with Cochlear Implants Who Were Postlingually Deafened.

Authors:  Michael S Vitevitch; David B Pisoni; Karen Iler Kirk; Marcia Hay-McCutcheon; Stacey L Yount
Journal:  Volta Rev       Date:  2000

3.  Some considerations in evaluating spoken word recognition by normal-hearing, noise-masked normal-hearing, and cochlear implant listeners. I: The effects of response format.

Authors:  M S Sommers; K I Kirk; D B Pisoni
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  [Phoneme discrimination training with experienced cochlear implant listeners].

Authors:  A Schumann; T Liebscher; U Hoppe
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.284

5.  Validation of the Iowa Test of Consonant Perception.

Authors:  Jason Geller; Ann Holmes; Adam Schwalje; Joel I Berger; Phillip E Gander; Inyong Choi; Bob McMurray
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2021-09       Impact factor: 2.482

Review 6.  Fundamental frequency and speech intelligibility in background noise.

Authors:  Christopher A Brown; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-09-11       Impact factor: 3.208

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.