Fundamental frequency and speech intelligibility in background noise

Hearing Research

Volumn 266, Issue 1-2, 2010, Pages 52-59

  Brown, Christopher A ^a   Bacon, Sid P ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

F0; Fundamental frequency; Glimpsing; Noise; Speech; Temporal fine structure

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC STRESS; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; AUDITORY MASKING; AUDITORY RESPONSE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY SYSTEM PARAMETERS; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; FREQUENCY MODULATION; FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY; HEARING ACUITY; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEPTIVE FIELD; REVIEW; SEX DIFFERENCE; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SOUND DETECTION; SOUND TRANSMISSION; SPEECH ARTICULATION; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; AUDITORY NERVOUS SYSTEM; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; HEARING; HEARING LOSS; NOISE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PSYCHOLOGY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME;

AUDITORY PATHWAYS; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PITCH DISCRIMINATION; SIGNAL DETECTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 77953684690     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2009.08.011     Document Type: Review

References (89)

1. Assmann P.F. Fundamental frequency and the intelligibility of competing voices. Proc. 14th Int. Cong. Phonetic Sci. 1999, 179-182.
2. Assmann P.F., Summerfield Q. Modeling the perception of concurrent vowels: vowels with different fundamental frequencies. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1990, 88:680-697.
3. Bacon S.P., Opie J.M., Montoya D.Y. The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 1998, 41:549-563.
4. Berenstein C.K., Mens L.H.M., Mulder J.J.S., Vanpoucke F.J. Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations. Ear Hear. 2008, 29:250-260.
5. Bierer J.A., Middlebrooks J.C. Auditory cortical images of cochlear-implant stimuli: dependence on electrode configuration. J. Neurophysiol. 2002, 87:478-492.
6. 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.
7. Bird, J., Darwin, C.J., 1997. Effects of a difference in fundamental frequency in separating two sentences. Paper for the 11th Int. Conf. on Hear.
8. Blamey P.J., Dowell R.C., Brown A.M., Clark G.M., Seligman P.M. Vowel and consonant recognition of cochlear implant patients using formant-estimating speech processors. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1987, 82:48-57.
9. Blamey P.J., Dowell R.C., Tong Y.C., Brown A.M., Luscombe S.M., Clark G.M. Speech processing studies using an acoustic model of a multiple-channel cochlear implant. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1984, 76:104-110.
10. Brokx J., Nooteboom S. Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices. J. Phonetics 1982, 10:23-36.
11. Brown C.A., Bacon S.P. Achieving electric-acoustic benefit with a modulated tone. Ear Hear. 2009, 30:489-493.
12. Brown C.A., Bacon S.P. Low-frequency speech cues and simulated electric-acoustic hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2009, 125:1658-1665.
13. Brown, C.A., Scherrer, N.M., Bacon, S.P., in preparation. Shifting fundamental frequency in simulated electric-acoustic listening. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
14. Carhart R., Tillman T.W. Interaction of competing speech signals with hearing losses. Arch. Otolaryngol. 1970, 91:273-279.
15. Carhart R., Tillman T.W., Greetis E.S. Perceptual masking in multiple sound backgrounds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1969, 45:694-703.
16. Chang J.E., Bai J.Y., Zeng F. Unintelligible low-frequency sound enhances simulated cochlear-implant speech recognition in noise. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2006, 53:2598-2601.
17. Chatterjee M., Peng S. Processing F0 with cochlear implants: modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition. Hear. Res. 2008, 235:143-156.
18. Clark G.M., Blamey P.J., Brown A.M., Gusby P.A., Dowell R.C., Franz B.K., Pyman B.C., Shepherd R.K., Tong Y.C., Webb R.L., et al. The University of Melbourne - nucleus multi-electrode cochlear implant. Adv. Otorhinolaryngol. 1987, 38:1-181. V-IX.
19. Culling J.F., Darwin C.J. The role of timbre in the segregation of simultaneous voices with intersecting F0 contours. Percept. Psychophys. 1993, 54:303-309.
20. Culling J.F., Darwin C.J. Perceptual separation of simultaneous vowels: within and across-formant grouping by F0. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1993, 93:3454-3467.
21. Cullington H.E., Zeng F. Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 123:450-461.
22. Cullington, H.E., Zeng, F., in press. Bimodal hearing benefit for speech recognition with competing voice in cochlear implant subject with normal hearing in contralateral ear. Ear Hear.
23. Dorman M.F., Loizou P.C. Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants. Am. J. Otol. 1997, 18:S113-114.
24. Dorman M.F., Loizou P.C. The identification of consonants and vowels by cochlear implant patients using a 6-channel continuous interleaved sampling processor and by normal-hearing subjects using simulations of processors with two to nine channels. Ear Hear. 1998, 19:162-166.
25. Dorman M.F., Loizou P.C., Rainey D. 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. 1997, 102:2403-2411.
26. Dorman M.F., Spahr A.J., Loizou P.C., Dana C.J., Schmidt J.S. Acoustic simulations of combined electric and acoustic hearing (EAS). Ear Hear. 2005, 26:371-380.
27. Dowell R.C., Martin L.F., Clark G.M., Brown A.M. Results of a preliminary clinical trial on a multiple channel cochlear prosthesis. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 1985, 94:244-250.
28. Dowell R.C., Mecklenburg D.J., Clark G.M. Speech recognition for 40 patients receiving multichannel cochlear implants. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 1986, 112:1054-1059.
29. Duquesnoy A.J. Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1983, 74:739-743.
30. Faulkner A., Rosen S. Contributions of temporal encodings of voicing, voicelessness, fundamental frequency, and amplitude variation to audio-visual and auditory speech perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1999, 106:2063-2073.
31. Faulkner A., Ball V., Rosen S., Moore B.C., Fourcin A. Speech pattern hearing aids for the profoundly hearing impaired: speech perception and auditory abilities. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1992, 91:2136-2155.
32. Festen J.M., Plomp R. Relations between auditory functions in impaired hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1983, 73:652-662.
33. Festen J.M., Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1990, 88:1725-1736.
34. Fu Q., Nogaki G. Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2005, 6:19-27.
35. Fu Q., Chinchilla S., Nogaki G., Galvin J.J.3. Voice gender identification by cochlear implant users: the role of spectral and temporal resolution. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005, 118:1711-1718.
36. Fu Q.J., Shannon R.V., Wang X. Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1998, 104:3586-3596.
37. Geurts L., Wouters J. Better place-coding of the fundamental frequency in cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 115:844-852.
38. Grant K.W., Ardell L.H., Kuhl P.K., Sparks D.W. The contribution of fundamental frequency, amplitude envelope, and voicing duration cues to speechreading in normal-hearing subjects. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1985, 77:671-677.
39. Green T., Faulkner A., Rosen S. Enhancing temporal cues to voice pitch in continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 116:2298-2310.
40. Green T., Faulkner A., Rosen S., Macherey O. Enhancement of temporal periodicity cues in cochlear implants: effects on prosodic perception and vowel identification. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005, 118:375-385.
41. Hall J.W., Wood E.J. Stimulus duration and frequency discrimination for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. J. Speech Hear. Res. 1984, 27:252-256.
42. Healy E.W., Steinbach H.M. The effect of smoothing filter slope and spectral frequency on temporal speech information. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 121:1177-1181.
43. Hillenbrand J., Getty L.A., Clark M.J., Wheeler K. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1995, 97:3099-3111.
44. Holt L.L., Lotto A.J., Kluender K.R. Influence of fundamental frequency on stop-consonant voicing perception: a case of learned covariation or auditory enhancement?. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2001, 109:764-774.
45. Hopkins K., Moore B.C.J. Moderate cochlear hearing loss leads to a reduced ability to use temporal fine structure information. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 122:1055-1068.
46. Hopkins K., Moore B.C.J., Stone M.A. Effects of moderate cochlear hearing loss on the ability to benefit from temporal fine structure information in speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 123:1140-1153.
47. Houtgast T., Festen J.M. On the auditory and cognitive functions that may explain an individual's elevation of the speech reception threshold in noise. Int. J. Audiol. 2008, 47:287-295.
48. Kishon-Rabin L., Boothroyd A., Hanin L. Speechreading enhancement: a comparison of spatial-tactile display of voice fundamental frequency (F0) with auditory F0. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1996, 100:593-602.
49. Koch D.B., Downing M., Osberger M.J., Litvak L. Using current steering to increase spectral resolution in CII and HiRes 90K users. Ear Hear. 2007, 28:38S-41S.
50. Kong Y., Carlyon R.P. Improved speech recognition in noise in simulated binaurally combined acoustic and electric stimulation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 121:3717-3727.
51. Kong Y., Stickney G.S., Zeng F. Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005, 117:1351-1361.
52. Laneau J., Wouters J., Moonen M. Relative contributions of temporal and place pitch cues to fundamental frequency discrimination in cochlear implantees. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 116:3606-3619.
53. Li N., Loizou P.C. A glimpsing account for the benefit of simulated combined acoustic and electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 123:2287-2294.
54. Liu S., Del Rio E., Bradlow A.R., Zeng F. Clear speech perception in acoustic and electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 116:2374-2383.
55. Loizou P.C. Mimicking the human ear. IEEE Sig. Proc. Mag. 1998, 101-129.
56. Lorenzi C., Debruille L., Garnier S., Fleuriot P., Moore B.C.J. Abnormal processing of temporal fine structure in speech for frequencies where absolute thresholds are normal. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2009, 125:27-30.
57. Lorenzi C., Gilbert G., Carn H., Garnier S., Moore B.C.J. Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103:18866-18869.
58. McDermott H.J., McKay C.M. Pitch ranking with nonsimultaneous dual-electrode electrical stimulation of the cochlea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1994, 96:155-162.
59. Mens L.H.M., Berenstein C.K. Speech perception with mono- and quadrupolar electrode configurations: a crossover study. Otol. Neurotol. 2005, 26:957-964.
60. Milczynski M., Wouters J., van Wieringen A. Improved fundamental frequency coding in cochlear implant signal processing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2009, 125:2260-2271.
61. Miller G.A., Licklider J.C.R. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1950, 22:167-173.
62. Miyoshi S., Iida Y., Shimizu S., Matsushima J., Ifukube T. Proposal of a new auditory nerve stimulation method for cochlear prosthesis. Artif. Organs 1996, 20:941-946.
63. Moore B.C.J. The role of temporal fine structure processing in pitch perception, masking, and speech perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired people. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2008, 9:399-406.
64. Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R., Hopkins K. Frequency discrimination of complex tones by hearing-impaired subjects: evidence for loss of ability to use temporal fine structure. Hear. Res. 2006, 222:16-27.
65. Nelson P.B., Jin S. Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 115:2286-2294.
66. Nelson P.B., Jin S., 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.
67. Oxenham A.J., Simonson A.M. Masking release for low- and high-pass-filtered speech in the presence of noise and single-talker interference. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2009, 125:457-468.
68. Peters R.W., Moore B.C.J., Baer T. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1998, 103:577-587.
69. Peterson G.E., Barney H.L. Control methods used in a study of the vowels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1952, 24:175-184.
70. Plomp R. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1978, 63:533-549.
71. Plomp R. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. J. Speech Hear. Res. 1986, 29:146-154.
72. Plomp R. Noise, amplification, and compression: considerations of three main issues in hearing aid design. Ear Hear. 1994, 15:2-12.
73. 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.
74. Qin M.K., Oxenham A.J. Effects of envelope-vocoder processing on F0 discrimination and concurrent-vowel identification. Ear Hear. 2005, 26:451-460.
75. Qin M.K., Oxenham A.J. Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2006, 119:2417-2426.
76. Rosen S.M., Fourcin A.J., Moore B.C.J. Voice pitch as an aid to lipreading. Nature 1981, 291:150-152.
77. Seligman P.M., Patrick J.F., Tong Y.C., Clark G.M., Dowell R.C., Crosby P.A. A signal processor for a multiple-electrode hearing prosthesis. Acta Otolaryngol. Suppl. 1984, 411:135-139.
78. Shannon R.V., Zeng F.G., Kamath V., Wygonski J., Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995, 270:303-304.
79. Spitzer S.M., Liss J.M., Mattys S.L. Acoustic cues to lexical segmentation: a study of resynthesized speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 122:3678-3687.
80. Stickney G.S., Assmann P.F., Chang J., Zeng F. Effects of cochlear implant processing and fundamental frequency on the intelligibility of competing sentences. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 122:1069-1078.
81. Stickney G.S., Zeng F., Litovsky R., Assmann P. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 116:1081-1091.
82. Stone M.A., Füllgrabe C., Moore B.C.J. Benefit of high-rate envelope cues in vocoder processing: effect of number of channels and spectral region. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 124:2272-2282.
83. Summers V., Leek M.R. FO processing and the separation of competing speech signals by listeners with normal hearing and with hearing loss. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 1998, 41:1294-1306.
84. Turner C.W., Gantz B.J., Vidal C., Behrens A., Henry B.A. Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 115:1729-1735.
85. Wei C., Cao K., Zeng F. Mandarin tone recognition in cochlear-implant subjects. Hear. Res. 2004, 197:87-95.
86. Whalen D.H., Abramson A.S., Lisker L., Mody M. F0 gives voicing information even with unambiguous voice onset times. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1993, 93:2152-2159.
87. Whitmal N.A., Poissant S.F., Freyman R.L., Helfer K.S. Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 122:2376-2388.
88. Wilson B., Sun X., Schatzer R., Wolford R. Representation of fine structure or fine frequency information with cochlear implants. Int. Cong. Ser. 2004, 1273:3-6.
89. Zhang, T., Dorman, M.F., Spahr, A.J., in press. Information from the voice fundamental frequency (F0) region accounts for the majority of the benefit when acoustic stimulation is added to electric stimulation. Ear Hear.