Effects of talker variability on vowel recognition in cochlear implants

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 49, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1331-1341

  Chang, Yi ping ^a   Fu, Qian Jie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Speech perception; Talker variability

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHONETICS; RECOGNITION; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

ADULT; AGED; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHONETICS; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 33847723937     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/095)     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Arndt, P., Staller, S., Arcaroli, J., Hines, A., & Ebinger, K. (1999). Within-subject comparison of advanced coding strategies in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant. Englewood, CO: Cochlear Corporation.
2. th Midwinter Meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, Daytona Beach, FL.
3. Creelman, C. D. (1957). Case of the unknown talker. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 29, 655.
4. 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 noiseband outputs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2403-2411.
5. Fishman, K. E., Shannon, R. V., & Slattery, W. H. (1997). Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 1201-1215.
6. Friesen, L. M., Shannon, R. V., Baskent, D., & Wang, X. (2001). Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 1150-1163.
7. Fu, Q.-J., Chinchilla, S., & Galvin, J. J. (2004). The role of spectral and temporal cues in voice gender discrimination by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 5, 253-260.
8. Fu, Q.-J., Chinchilla, S., Nogaki, G., & Galvin, J. J., III. (2005). Voice gender discrimination: The role of periodicity and spectral profile. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1711-1718.
9. Fu, Q.-J., & Nogaki, G. (2005). Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: The role of spectral resolution and smearing. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 6, 19-27.
10. Goldinger, S. (1992). Words and voices: Implicit and explicit memory for spoken words (Research on Speech Perception Tech. Rep. No.7., pp. 1-128). Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory.
11. Greenwood, D. D. (1990). A cochlear frequency-position function for several species-29 years later. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 2592-2605.
12. 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.
13. Joos, M. A. (1948). Acoustic phonetic. Language, 24(Suppl. 2), 1-136.
14. Kaiser, A. R., Kirk, K. I., Lachs, L., & Pisoni, D. B. (2003). Talker and lexical effects on audiovisual word recognition by adults with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 390-404.
15. Kirk, K. I., Hay-McCutcheon, M., Sehgal, S. T., & Miyamoto, R. T. (2000). Speech perception in children with cochlear implants: Effects of lexical difficulty, talker variability, and word length. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, Suppl. 185, 79-81.
16. Kirk, K. I., Pisoni, D. B., & Miyamoto, R. C. (1997). Effects of stimulus variability on speech perception in listeners with hearing impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 1395-1405.
17. Klatt, D. H. (1986). The problem of variability in speech recognition and in models of speech perception. In J. S. Perkell & D. H. Klatt (Eds.), Invariance and variability in speech processes (pp. 300-319). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Kong, Y.-Y., Vongphoe, M., & Zeng, F.-G. (2003, February). Independent contributions of amplitude and frequency modulations to auditory perception: II. Melody, tone, and speaker identification. Abstract from the 26th ARO Midwinter Meeting, Daytona Beach, FL.
19. Krulee, G. K., Tondo, D. K., & Wightman, F. L. (1983). Speech perception as a multilevel processing system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12, 531-554.
20. Lawson, D. T., Wilson, B. S., Zerbi, M., & Finley, C. C. (1996). Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Third Quarterly Progress Report (NIH Contract N01-DC-5-2103).
21. Miller, G A., & Nicely, P. E. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusion among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 338-352.
22. Mullennix, J.W., & Pisoni, D. B. (1990). Stimulus variability and processing dependencies in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 47, 379-390.
23. Mullennix, J. W., Pisoni, D. B., & Martin, C. S. (1989). Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 365-378.
24. Nie, K., Stickey, G. S., & Zeng, F.-G. (2005).Encoding frequency modulation to improve cochlear implant performance in noise. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 52, 64-73.
25. Nygaard, L. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 60, 355-376.
26. Parkin, J. L., Randolph, L. J., & Parkin, B. D. (1993). Multichannel (ineraid) cochlear implant update. Laryngoscope, 103, 835-840.
27. Peterson, G. E., & Barney, H. L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 175-184.
28. Pisoni, D. B. (1990). Effects of talker variability on speech perception: Implications for current research and theory. In H. Fujisaki (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1990 International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 1399-1407).Kobe, Japan: Acoustical Society of Japan.
29. Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Long-term memory in speech perception: Some new findings on talker variability, speaking rate, and perceptual learning. Speech Communication, 4, 75-95.
30. Ryalls, B. O., & Pisoni, D. B. (1997). The effect of talker variability on word recognition in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 441-452.
31. Seligman, P. M., & McDermott, H. J. (1995). Architecture of the Spectra-22 speech processor. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 104(Suppl. 166), 139-141.
32. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F.-G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303-304.
33. Sommers, M. S. (1997). Stimulus variability and spoken word recognition: II. The effects of age and hearing impairment. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2278-2288.
34. Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1974). The perception of speech. In T.A. Sebeok (Ed.), Current trends in linguistics (pp. 2349-2385). The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.
35. Takayanagi, S., Dirks, D. D., & Moshfegh, A. (2002). Lexical and talker effects on word recognition among native and nonnative listeners with normal and impaired hearing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 585-597.
36. Vongphoe, M., & Zeng, F.-G. (2005). Speaker recognition with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1055-1061.
37. 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.
38. Zeng, F.-G., Nie, K., Stickey, G. S., Kong, Y.-Y., Vongphoe, M., Bhargave, A., et al. (2005). Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102, 2293-2298.