Identification of environmental sounds with varying spectral resolution

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 401-420

  Shafiro, Valeriy ^a,b  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ACOUSTICS; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FREQUENCY DISCRIMINATION; HEARING; HUMAN; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SOUND DETECTION; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ALGORITHMS; ATTENTION; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; CUES; FEMALE; HEARING TESTS; HUMANS; MALE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; SOUND LOCALIZATION; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY;

EID: 43249090051     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31816a0cf1     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Arai, T. & Greenberg, S. (1998). Speech intelligibility in the presence of cross-channel spectral asynchrony. Proceeding of IEEE ICASSP, 933-936.
2. Ballas, J. A. (1993). Common factors in the identification of an assortment of brief everyday sounds. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 19, 250-267.
3. Dorman, M. F. (1993). Speech perception by adults. In R. S. Tyler (Ed.), Cochlear implants: audiological foundations. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group.
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 noise-band outputs. J Acoust Soc Am, 102, 2403-2411.
5. Eisenberg, L. S. (1985). Perceptual capabilities with the cochlear implant: implications for aural rehabilitation. Ear Hear, 6 (Suppl), 60S-69S.
6. Fu, Q., & Galvin, J. (2001). Recognition of spectrally asynchronous speech by normal-hearing listeners and Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 1166-1172.
7. Fu, Q.-J. & Shannon, R. V. (2002). Frequency mapping in cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 23, 339-348.
8. Gaver, W. W. (1993). What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecol Psychol, 5, 1-29.
9. Green, T., Faulkner, A., & Rosen, S. (2002). Spectral and temporal cues to pitch in noise-excited vocoder simulations of continuous-interleaved- sampling cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 2155-2164.
10. Greenwood, D. D. (1990). A cochlear frequency-position function for several species-29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am, 87, 2592-2605.
11. Gygi, B., Kidd, G. R., & Watson, C. S. (2004). Spectral-temporal factors in the identification of environmental sounds. J Acoust Soc Am, 115, 1252-1265.
12. Jenkins, J. J. (1985). Acoustic information for objects, places, and events. In W. H. Warren, & R. E. Shaw (Eds.), Persistence and change, (pp. 115-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
13. Kiefte, M. (1999). Discriminant Analysis Toolbox 0.3 for Matlab. Available at: http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/loadFile.do? objectType=file&objectId=189.
14. Loizou, P. C. (1998). Mimicking the human ear. IEEE Sig Process Mag, 15, 101-130.
15. Loizou, P. C. (2006). Speech processing in vocoder-centric cochlear implants. In A Moller (Ed.), Cochlear and brainstem implants: Vol. 64. Advances in otorhinolaryngology (pp. 109-143). Basel: Karger.
16. Loizou, P. C., Dorman, M., & Tu, Z. (1999). On the number of channels needed to understand speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 106 (Pt 1), 2097-2103.
17. Marcell, M. M., Borella, D., Greene, M., et al. (2000). Confrontation naming of environmental sounds. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol, 22, 830-864.
18. Miller, G. A., Heise, A., & Lichten, W. (1951). The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. J Exp Psychol, 41, 329-335.
19. Owens, E., Kessler, D. K., Raggio, M. W., et al. (1985). Analysis and revision of the Minimal Auditory Capabilities (MAC) battery. Ear Hear, 6, 280-290.
20. Ramsdell, D. A. (1978). The psychology of the hard-of-hearing and the deafened adult. In H. David, & S. R. Silverman (Eds.), Hearing and deafness. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
21. Reed, C. M., & Delhorne, L. A. (2005). Reception of environmental sounds through cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 26, 48-61.
22. Shafiro, V. (2004). Perceiving the sources of environmental sounds with a varying number of spectral channels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, New York, NY.
23. Shafiro, V., & Gygi, B. (2004). How to select stimuli for environmental sound research and where to find them? Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput, 36, 590-598.
24. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F., Kamath, V., et al. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303-304.
25. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F., & Wygonski, J. (1998). Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. J Acoust Soc Am, 104, 2467-2476.
26. Slaney, M. (1995). Auditory Toolbox: A MATLAB toolbox for auditory modeling work (Apple Computer Technical Report No. 45) Cupertina, CA: Apple Computer, Inc.
27. Stone, M., & Moore, B. (2003). Tolerable hearing aid delays. III. Effects on speech production and perception of across-frequency variation in delay. Ear Hear, 24, 175-183.
28. Tyler, R. S. (1994). Advantages and disadvantages expected and reported by cochlear implant patients. Am J Otol, 15, 523-531.
29. Tyler, R. S., Moore, B., & Kuk, F. (1989). Performance of some of the better cochlear-implant patients. J Speech Hear Res, 32, 887-911.
30. Vanderveer, N. J. (1979). Ecological acoustics: human perception of environmental sounds. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 4543B.
31. Warren, W. H., & Verbrugge, R. R. (1984). Auditory perception of breaking and bouncing events. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 10, 704-712.
32. Xu, L., Thompson, C. S., & Pfingst, B. E. (2005). Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 3255-3267.
33. Zhao, F., Stephens, S. D. G., Sim, S. W., et al. (1997). The use of qualitative questionnaires in patients having and being considered for cochlear implants. Clin Otolaryngol, 22, 254-259.
34. Zwolan, T. A., Kileny, P. R., & Telian, S. A. (1996). Self-report of cochlear implant use and satisfaction by prelingually deafened adults. Ear Hear, 17, 198-210.