Effects of temporal fine structure on the lateralization of speech and on speech understanding in noise

JARO - Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 373-383

  Drennan, Ward R ^a,b   Won, Jong Ho ^a,c   Dasika, Vasant K ^a   Rubinstein, Jay T ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c University of Washington   (United States)

Author keywords

Binaural hearing; Cochlear implant; Fine structure

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BINAURAL HEARING; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MEASUREMENT; NOISE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECIPIENT; SIMULATION; SPEECH; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; TASK PERFORMANCE; TEMPORAL CORTEX; TIME;

ADULT; AUDITORY CORTEX; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SPEECH; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 34547697126     PISSN: 15253961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10162-007-0074-y     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Assmann PF, Summerfield Q. Modeling the perception of concurrent vowels: vowels with different fundamental frequencies. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 88:680-697, 1990.
2. Best V, Schaik Av, Carlile S. Separation of concurrent broadband sound sources by human listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115:324-336, 2004.
3. Bilger RC, Nuetzel JM, Rabinowitz WM, Rzeczkowski C. Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J. Speech Hear. Res. 27:32-48, 1984.
4. Bird J, Darwin CJ. Effects of a difference in fundamental frequency in separating two sentences. In: Palmer AR, Rees A, Summerfield AQ and Meddis R (eds) Psychophysical and Physiological Advances in Hearing. London, Whurr, pp. 263-269, 1998.
5. Brokx JPL, Nooteboom SG. Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices. J. Phon. 10:23-36, 1982.
6. Bronkhorst AW, Plomp R. The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83:1508-1516, 1988.
7. Carhart R, Tillman TW, Johnson KR. Release of masking for speech through interaural time delay. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 42:124-138, 1967.
8. Culling JF, Darwin CJ. Perceptual separation of simultaneous vowels: within and across-formant grouping by F0. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93:3454-3467, 1993.
9. Culling JF, Hawley ML, Litovsky RY. The role of head-induced interaural time and level differences in the speech reception threshold for multiple interfering sound sources. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116:1057-1065, 2004.
10. Dorman MF, Loizou PC, Fitzke J, Tu Z. The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104:3583-3585, 1998.
11. Drennan WR, Gatehouse S, Lever C. Perceptual segregation of competing speech sounds: the role of spatial location. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114:2178-2189, 2003.
12. Fishman K, Shannon RV, Slattery WH. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J. Speech Hear. Res. 32:524-535, 1997.
13. Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110:1150-1163, 2001.
14. Good MD, Gilkey RH. Sound localization in noise. The effect of signal-to-noise ratio. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99:1108-1117, 1996.
15. Harris RW. Speech audiometry materials compact disk. Provo, UT, Brigham Young University, pp. 1991.
16. Henning GB. Detectability of interaural delay in high-frequency complex waveforms. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 55:1974.
17. Houtsma AJM, Smurzynski J. Pitch identification and discrimination for complex tones with many harmonics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87:304-310, 1990.
18. Jeffress LA. A place theory of sound localization. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 41:35-39, 1948.
19. Jeffress LA. Medial geniculate body-a disavowal. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 30:802-803, 1958.
20. Jeffress LA, Blodgett HC, Deatherage BH. Effect of interaural correlation on the precision of centering a noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 34:1122-1123, 1962.
21. Klumpp RG, Eady HR. Some measurements of interaural time difference thresholds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 28:859-860, 1956.
22. Kong Y-Y, Stickney GS, Zeng F-G. Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117:1351-1361, 2005.
23. Laback B, Pok S-M, Baumgartner W-D, Deutsch WA, Schmid K. Sensitivity to interaural level and envelope differences of two bilateral cochlear implant listeners using clinical sound processors. Ear Hear. 25:488-500, 2004.
24. Litvak L, Delgutte B, Eddington D. Improved neural representation of vowels in electric stimulation using desynchronizing pulse trains. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114:2099-2111, 2003.
25. Long CJ, Carlyon RP, Litovsky RY, Downs DH. Binaural unmasking with bilateral cochlear implants. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 7:352-360, 2006.
26. Long CJ, Eddington DK, Colburn HS, Rabinowitz WM. Binaural sensitivity as a function of interaural electrode position with a bilateral cochlear implant user. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114:1565-1574, 2003.
27. McFadden D, Pasanen EG. Lateralization at high frequencies based on interaural time differences. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 59:634-639, 1976.
28. Meddis R, O'Mard L. A unitary model of pitch perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102:1811-1820, 1997.
29. Miller GA. The masking of speech. Psychol. Bull. 44:105-129, 1947.
30. Plomp R. Pitch of complex tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 41:1526-1533, 1967.
31. Qin MK, Oxenham AJ. Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114:446-454, 2003.
32. Qin MK, Oxenham AJ. Effects of envelope-vocoder processing on F0 discrimination and concurrent-vowel identification. Ear Hear. 26:451-460, 2005.
33. Qin MK, Oxenham AJ. Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119:2417-2426, 2006.
34. Rayleigh L. On our perception of sound direction. Philos. Mag. 74:214-231, 1907.
35. Rubinstein JT, Turner CW. A novel acoustic simulation of cochlear implant hearing: effects of temporal fine structure. First International IEEE EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering, IEEE Press, 142-145, 2003.
36. Rubinstein JT, Wilson BS, Finley CC, Abbas PJ. Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hear. Res. 127:108-118, 1999.
37. Shannon RV, Zeng F-G, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270:303-304, 1995.
38. Smith ZM, Delgutte B, Oxenham AJ. Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature 416:87-90, 2002.
39. Stickney GS, Zeng F-G, Litovsky R, Assmann P. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116:1081-1091, 2004.
40. Tobias JV, Schubert ED. Effective onset duration of auditory stimuli. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 31:1595-1605, 1959.
41. Turner CW, Gantz BJ, Vidal C, Behrens A, Henry BA. Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: Benefits of residual acoustic hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115:1729-1735, 2004.
42. Van de Par S, Kohlrausch A. A new approach to comparing binaural masking level differences at low and high frequencies. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101:1671-1680, 1997.
43. Van Hoesel RJM, Tyler RS. Speech perception, localization and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113:1617-1630, 2003.
44. Wightman FL, Kistler DJ. The dominant role of low frequency interaural time differences in sound localization. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91:1648-1661, 1992.
45. Won JH, Drennan W, Rubinstein J. Spectral ripple resolution and speech perception in babble and speech-shaped noise by cochlear implant listeners. Presented at the 30th annual midwinter meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, vol. 30, pp. 304, 2007.
46. Xu L, Pfingst BE. Relative importance of temporal envelope and fine structure in lexical-tone perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114:3024-3027, 2003.
47. Yost WA, Wightman FL, Green DM. Lateralization of filtered clicks. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 39:1526-1531, 1971.