Intelligibility of interrupted and interleaved speech for normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implantees

Hearing Research

Volumn 265, Issue 1-2, 2010, Pages 46-53

  Gnansia, Dan ^a,b,c   Pressnitzer, Daniel ^a,b   Péan, Vincent ^b,c   Meyer, Bernard ^b,d   Lorenzi, Christian ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^b ECOLE NORMALE SUPÉRIEURE   (France)

^c MXM Neurelec   (France)

^d BEAUJON HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGING; ARTICLE; AUDITORY MASKING; AUDITORY ORIENTATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONSONANT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; VOWEL;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; CUES; FEMALE; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PITCH PERCEPTION; REHABILITATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; TIME PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77952884883     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2010.02.012     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Assmann P.F., Summerfield Q. Modeling the perception of concurrent vowels: vowels with different fundamental frequencies. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1990, 88:680-697.
2. Assmann P.F., Summerfield Q. The perception of speech under adverse acoustic conditions. Speech Processing in the Auditory System 2004, vol. 18:231-308. Springer, Berlin.
3. Bashford J.A., Riener K.R., Warren R.M. Increasing the intelligibility of speech through multiple phonemic restorations. Percept. Psychophys. 1992, 51:211-217.
4. Binns C., Culling J.F. The role of fundamental frequency contours in the perception of speech against interfering speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 122:1765.
5. Bregman A.S. Auditory Scene Analysis 1990, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
6. Cooke M., Ellis D.P.W. The auditory organization of speech and other sources in listeners and computational models. Speech Commun. 2001, 35:141-177.
7. Cooke M., Green P., Josifovski L., Vizinho A. Robust automatic speech recognition with missing and unreliable acoustic data. Speech Commun. 2001, 34:267-285.
8. Cooke M. Glimpsing speech. J. Phon. 2003, 31:579-584.
9. Cooke M. A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2006, 119:1562-1573.
10. Darwin C.J., Carlyon R.P. Auditory grouping. The Handbook of Perception and Cognition 1995, vol. 6:387-424. Academic Press, London.
11. de Cheveigné A., Kawahara H. YIN, a fundamental frequency estimator for speech and music. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2002, 111:1917-1930.
12. Fearn, R.A., 2001. Music and pitch perception of cochlear implant recipients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales.
13. Fu Q.J., Shannon R.V. Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2000, 107:589-597.
14. Fu Q.J., Nogaki G. Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2005, 6:19-27.
15. Gilbert G., Bergeras I., Voillery D., Lorenzi C. Effects of periodic interruptions on the intelligibility of speech based on temporal fine-structure or envelope cues. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 122:1336.
16. Glasberg B.R., Moore B.C.J. Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data. Hear. Res. 1990, 47:103-138.
17. Gnansia D., Jourdes V., Lorenzi C. Effect of masker modulation depth on speech masking release. Hear. Res. 2008, 239:60-68.
18. Gnansia D., Pean V., Meyer B., Lorenzi C. Effects of spectral smearing and temporal fine structure degradation on speech masking release. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2009, 125:4023-4033.
19. Hohmann V. Frequency analysis and synthesis using a gammatone filterbank. Acust. Acta Acust. 2002, 88:433-442.
20. Miller G.A., Licklider J.C.A. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1950, 22:167-173.
21. Moore B.C.J., Carlyon R.P. Perception of pitch by people with cochlear hearing loss and cochlear implant users. Pitch: Neural Coding and Perception 2005, Springer. C.J. Plack, A.J. Oxenham, R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper (Eds.).
22. Nelson P.B., Jin S.H., Carney A.E., Nelson D.A. Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 113:961-968.
23. Nelson P.B., Jin S.H. Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 115:2286-2294.
24. Patterson R.D. A pulse ribbon model of monaural phase perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1987, 82:1560-1586.
25. Qin M.K., Oxenham A.J. Effects of simulated cochlear implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 114:446-454.
26. Shannon R.V., Zeng F.G., Kamath V., Wygonski J., Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995, 270:303-304.
27. Stevens K.N. Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2002, 111:1872-1891.
28. Stickney G.S., Zeng F.G., Litovsky R., Assmann P. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 116:1081-1091.
29. Studebaker G.A. A " rationalized" arcsine transform. J. Speech Hear. Res. 1985, 28:455-462.
30. Warren R.M., Bashford J.A., Gardner D.A. Tweaking the lexicon: organization of vowel sequences into words. Percept. Psychophys. 1990, 47:423-432.
31. Warren R.M., Hainsworth K.R., Brubaker B.S., Bashford J.A., Healy E.W. Spectral restoration of speech: intelligibility is increased by inserting noise in spectral gaps. Percept. Psychophys. 1997, 59:275-283.
32. Zeng F.G., Nie K., Stickney G.S., Kong Y.Y., Vongphoe M., Bhargave A., Wei C., Cao K. Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102:2293-2298.
33. Zeng F.G. Role of temporal fine structure in speech perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 123:3710.
34. Zeng, F.G., 2009. The relative importance of temporal envelope and fine structure cues for pitch and speech perception in noise. In: Mid-winter ARO Meeting, vol. 32, Baltimore, USA, pp. 4.