Double-vowel perception in listeners with cochlear hearing loss: Differences in fundamental frequency, ear of presentation, and relative amplitude

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 236-252

  Arehart, Kathryn Hoberg ^a   Rossi Katz, Jessica ^a   Swensson Prutsman, Julie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Double vowel identification; Fundamental frequency cues; Hearing loss; Peripheral masking; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; AUDIOMETRY; AUDITORY MASKING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEARING ACUITY; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TYMPANOMETRY; VOWEL;

ADULT; AGED; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEA; CUES; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PHONETICS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VOCABULARY;

EID: 16344390972     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/017)     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. American National Standards Institute. (1989). Specifications for audiometers (ANSI S3.6 1989). New York: Author.
2. Arehart, K. H. (1998). Effects of high-frequency amplification on double-vowel identification in listeners with hearing loss. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 1733-1736.
3. Arehart, K. H., King, C. A., & McLean-Mudgett, K. S. (1997). Role of fundamental frequency differences in the perceptual separation of competing vowel sounds by listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 1434-1444.
4. Assmann, P. F., & Paschall, D. D. (1998). Pitches of concurrent vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103, 1150-1160.
5. Assmann, P. F., & Summerfield, Q. (1989). Modeling the perception of concurrent vowels: Vowels with the same fundamental frequency. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 327-338.
6. Assmann, P. F., & Summerfield, Q. (1990). Modeling the perception of concurrent vowels: Vowels with different fundamental frequencies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 680-697.
7. Culling, J. F., & Darwin, C. J. (1993). Perceptual separation of simultaneous vowels: Within and across-formant grouping by fundamental frequency. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93, 3454-3467.
8. Culling, J. F., & Darwin, C. J. (1994). Perceptual and computational separation of simultaneous vowels: Cues arising from low-frequency beating. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1559-1569.
9. de Cheveigné, A. (1997). Concurrent vowel identification: III. A neural model of harmonic interference cancellation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2857-2865.
10. 0 difference. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2839-2847.
11. de Cheveigné, A., McAdams, S., Laroche, J., & Rosenberg, M. (1995). Identification of concurrent harmonic and inharmonic vowels: A test of the theory of harmonic cancellation and enhancement. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3736-3747.
12. Klatt, D. H. (1980). Software of a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 971-995.
13. McKeown, J. D. (1992). Perception of concurrent vowels: The effect of varying their relative level. Speech Communication, 11, 1-13.
14. Meddis, R., & Hewitt, M. (1992). Modeling the identification of concurrent vowels with different fundamental frequencies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 233-245.
15. Moore, B. C. J. M., & Glasberg, B. (1997). A model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Auditory Neuroscience, 3, 289-311.
16. Peterson, G. E., & Barney, H. L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 1236-1249.
17. Scheffers, M. T. M. (1983). Sifting vowels: Auditory pitch analysis and sound segregation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
18. Stubbs, R. J. & Summerfield, Q. (1988). Evaluation of two voice-separation algorithms using normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 1236-1249.
19. Summerfield, Q., & Assmann, P. F. (1989). Auditory enhancement and the perception of concurrent vowels. Perception and Psychophysics, 45, 529-536.
20. Summerfield, Q., & Assmann, P. F. (1991). Perception of concurrent vowels: Effects of harmonic misalignment and pitch-period asynchrony. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 1364-1377.
21. Summerfield, Q., & Culling, J. F. (1992). Auditory segregation of competing voices: Absence of effects of FM or AM coherence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 336, 357-366.
22. Summerfield, Q., Culling, J. F., & Assmann, P. F. (1996, July). The perception of speech under adverse conditions: Contributions of spectro-temporal peaks, periodicity, and inter-aural timing to perceptual robustness. Paper presented at the Workshop on the Auditory Basis of Speech Perception, Keele, United Kingdom.
23. Summers, V., & Leek, M. R. (1998). F0 processing and the separation of competing speech signals by listeners with normal hearing and with hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1294-1306.
24. Zwicker, U. T. (1984). Auditory recognition of diotic and dichotic vowel pairs. Speech Communication, 3, 265-277.