Effects of envelope-vocoder processing on F0 discrimination and concurrent-vowel identification

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 451-460

  Qin, Michael K ^a   Oxenham, Andrew J ^b  

^a Naval Submarine Base New London   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDIOMETRY; AUDITORY SYSTEM; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMPETITION; ENVELOPE VOCODER PROCESSING; FREQUENCY DISCRIMINATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; SPECTROSCOPY; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; VOWEL;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DIFFERENTIAL THRESHOLD; HUMANS; PITCH DISCRIMINATION;

EID: 27144503655     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.aud.0000179689.79868.06     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Assmann, P. F., & Summerfield, Q. (1994). The contribution of waveform interactions to the perception of concurrent vowels," J. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 471-484.
4. Bachorowski, J. A., & Owren, M. J. (1999). Acoustic correlates of talker sex and individual talker identity are present in a short vowel segment produced in running speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 1054-1063.
5. Bernstein, J. G., & Oxenham, A. J. (2003). Pitch discrimination of diotic and dichotic tone complexes: harmonic resolvability or harmonic number? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 3323-3334.
6. Bird, J., & Darwin, C. J. (1998). Effects of a difference in fundamental frequency in separating two sentences. In A. R. Palmer, A. Rees, A. Q. Summerfield, and R. Meddis (Eds.) Psychophysical and Physiological Advances in Hearing. London: Whurr.
7. Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organisation of Sound. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.
8. Brokx, J. P. L., & Nooteboom, S. G. (1982). Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices. Phonetics, 10, 23-36.
9. Burns, E. M., & Viemeister, N. F. (1976). Nonspectral pitch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 60, 863-869.
10. Burns, E. M., & Viemeister, N. F. (1981). Played again SAM: Further observations on the pitch of amplitude-modulated noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 70, 1655-1660.
11. Busby, P. A., Tong, Y. C., & Clark, G. M. (1993). The perception of temporal modulations by cochlear implant patients. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 124-131.
12. Carlyon, R. P. (1996). Encoding the fundamental frequency of a complex tone in the presence of a spectrally overlapping masker. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 517-524.
13. Carlyon, R. P., van Wieringen, A., Long, C. J., Deeks, J. M., & Wouters, J. (2002). Temporal pitch mechanisms in acoustic and electric hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112, 621-633.
14. Clark, G. M., Tong, Y. C., & Patrick, J. F. (1990). Cochlear Prostheses. Churchill Livingston, Edinburgh, 1990.
15. Culling, J. F., & Darwin, C. J. (1993). Perceptual separation of simultaneous vowels: Within and across-formant grouping by F0. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93, 3454-3467.
16. 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.
17. Darwin, C. J., Brungart, D. S., & Simpson, B. D. (2003). Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 2913-2922.
18. Darwin, C. J., & Carlyon, R. P. (1995). Auditory Grouping. In B. C. J. Moore (Ed.) Hearing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
19. de Cheveigné, A., Kawahara, H., Tsuzaki, M., & Aikawa, K. (1997). Concurrent vowel identification. I. Effects of relative amplitude and Fo difference., Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2839-2847.
20. Deeks, J. M., & Carlyon, R. P. (2004). Simulations of cochlear implant hearing using filtered harmonic complexes: implications for concurrent sound segregation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 1736-1746.
21. Dorman, M. F., Loizou, P. C., & Rainey, D. (1997). Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2403-2411.
22. Faulkner, A., Rosen, S., & Smith, C. (2000). Effects of the salience of pitch and periodicity information on the intelligibility of four-channel vocoded speech: Implications for cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108, 1877-1887.
23. Fu, Q. J., Shannon, R. V., & Wang, X. S. (1998a). Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: Acoustic and electric hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 3586-3596.
24. Fu, Q. J., Zeng, F. G., Shannon, R. V., & Soli, S. D. (1998b). Importance of tonal envelope cues in Chinese speech recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 505-510.
25. Geurts, L., & Wouters, J. (2001). Coding of the fundamental frequency in continuous interleaved sampling processors for cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 713-726.
26. Glasberg, B. R., & Moore, B. C. J. (1990). Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data. Hearing Research, 47, 103-138.
27. Green, T., Faulkner, A., & Rosen, S. (2002). Spectral and temporal cues to pitch in noise-excited vocoder simulations of continuous-interleaved- sampling cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112, 2155-2164.
28. Hartmann, W. M. (1997). Signals, Sound, and Sensation. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
29. Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3099-3111.
30. House, A. S. (1960). Formant band widths and vowel preference. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 3, 3-8.
31. House, A. S. (1961). On vowel duration in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33, 1174-1178.
32. Houtgast, T., Steeneken, H. J. M., & Plomp, R. (1980). Predicting speech intelligibility in rooms from the modulation transfer function. I. General room acoustics. Acustica 46, 60-72.
33. Houtsma, A. J. M., & Smurzynski, J. (1990). Pitch identification and discrimination for complex tones with many harmonics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 304-310.
34. Kaernbach, C., & Bering, C. (2001). Exploring the temporal mechanism involved in the pitch of unresolved harmonics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 1039-1048.
35. Klatt, D. H. (1980). Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 971-995.
36. Kohlrausch, A., Fassel, R., & Dau, T. (2000). The influence of carrier level and frequency on modulation and beat- detection thresholds for sinusoidal carriers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108, 723-734.
37. Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49, 467-477.
38. Litvak, L., Delgutte, B., & Eddington, D. (2001). Auditory nerve fiber responses to electrical stimulation: Modulated and unmodulated pulse trains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 368-379.
39. Loizou, P. C. (1999). Introduction to cochlear implants. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 18, 32-42.
40. McKay, C. M., McDermott, H. J., & Clark, G. M. (1994). Pitch percepts associated with amplitude-modulated current pulse trains in cochlear implantees. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2664-2673.
41. 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.
42. Moore, B. C. (2003). Coding of sounds in the auditory system and its relevance to signal processing and coding in cochlear implants. Otology and Neurotology, 24, 243-254.
43. Nelson, P. B., & Jin, S. H. (2004). Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: Cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 2286-2294.
44. Nelson, P. B., Jin, S. H., Carney, A. E., & Nelson, D. A. (2003). Understanding speech in modulated interference: Cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 961-968.
45. Plomp, R. (1967). Pitch of complex tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 41, 1526-1533.
46. Qin, M. K., & Oxenham, A. J. (2003). Effects of simulated cochlear implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 446-454.
47. Rosen, S., Faulkner, A., & Wilkinson, L. (1999). Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: Implications for cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 3629-3636.
48. Rubenstein, J. T., Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., & Abbas, P. J. (1999). Pseudospontaneous activity: Stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hearing Research, 127, 108-118.
49. Scheffers, M. T. M. (1983). Sifting vowels: Auditory pitch analysis and sound segregation, Ph.D. Thesis, Groningen University, The Netherlands.
50. Shackleton, T. M., & Carlyon, R. P. (1994). The role of resolved and unresolved harmonics in pitch perception and frequency-modulation discrimination. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 3529-3540.
51. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F. G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303-304.
52. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F. G., & Wygonski, J. (1998). Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 2467-2476.
53. Smith, Z. M., Delgutte, B., & Oxenham, A. J. (2002). Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature, 416, 87-90.
54. Steeneken, H. J. M., & Houtgast, T. (1980). A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69, 318-326.
55. Stickney, G., Zeng, F.-G., Litovsky, R., & Assmann, P. (2004). Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 1081-1091.
56. Studebaker, G. (1985). A 'rationalized' arcsine transform. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 455-462.
57. Summerfield, A. Q., & Assmann, P. F. (1991). Perception of concurrent vowels: effects of pitch-pulse asynchrony and harmonic misalignment. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 1364-1377.
58. Throckmorton, C. S., & Collins, L. M. (2002). The effect of channel interactions on speech recognition in cochlear implant subjects: predictions from an acoustic model. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112, 285-296.
59. Wilson, B. S. (1997). The future of cochlear implants. British Journal of Audiology, 31, 205-225.
60. Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., Lawson, D. T., Wolford, R. D., Eddington, D. K., & Rabinowitz, W. M. (1991). Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature, 352, 236-238.