Recognition of temporally interrupted and spectrally degraded sentences with additional unprocessed low-frequency speech

Hearing Research

Volumn 270, Issue 1-2, 2010, Pages 127-133

  Başkent, Deniz ^a,b   Chatterjee, Monita ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; NORMAL HUMAN; PITCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PITCH PERCEPTION; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS; VOICE QUALITY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 78649841592     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2010.08.011     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. American National Standards Institute.ANSI S3.5-1969 R American national standard methods for the calculation of the articulation index 1986.
2. Arehart K.H., Souza P.E., Muralimanohar R.K., Miller C.W. Effects of age on concurrent vowel perception in acoustic and simulated electro-acoustic hearing. J. Speech. Lang. Hear. Res. 2010, 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0145).
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. Başkent D. Phonemic restoration in sensorineural hearing loss does not depend on baseline speech perception scores. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2010, 128. EL169-EL174.
5. Başkent D., Eiler C.L., Edwards B. Phonemic restoration by hearing-impaired listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. Hear. Res. 2010, 260:54-62.
6. Boersma P. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot Int. 2001, 5:341-345.
7. Brown C.A., Bacon S.P. Low-frequency speech cues and simulated electric-acoustic hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2009, 125:1658-1665.
8. Brown C.A., Bacon S.P. Achieving electric-acoustic benefit with a modulated tone. Ear Hear 2009, 30:489-493.
9. Büchner A., Schüssler M., Battmer R.D., Stöver T., Lesinski-Schiedat A., Lenarz T. Impact of low-frequency hearing. Audiol. Neurotol 2009, 1(14 Supp.):8-13.
10. Chang J.E., Bai J.Y., Zeng F.G. Unintelligible low-frequency sound enhances simulated cochlear-implant speech recognition in noise. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2006, 53(12):2598-2601.
11. Chatterjee M., Peredo F., Nelson D., Başkent D. Recognition of interrupted sentences under conditions of spectral degradation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2010, 127:EL37-EL41.
12. Cusack R., Carlyon R.P. Auditory scene analysis inside and outside the laboratory. Ecological Psychoacoustics 2004, J. Neuhoff (Ed.).
13. Dudley H. Remaking speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1939, 11:169-177.
14. Faulkner A., Rosen S., Stanton D. Simulations of tonotopically-mapped speech processors for cochlear implant electrodes varying in insertion depth. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 113:1073-1080.
15. Fletcher H., Steinberg J.C. Articulation testing methods. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1929, 8:806-854.
16. French N.R., Steinberg J.C. Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1947, 19:90-119.
17. Friesen L.M., Shannon R.V., Başkent 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. 2001, 110:1150-1163.
18. 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.
19. 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 (L). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 122:1336-1339.
20. Gordon-Salant S., Fitzgibbons P.J. Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners. J. Speech. Hear. Res. 1993, 36:1276-1285.
21. Greenwood D.D. A cochlear frequency-position function for several species-29 years later. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1990, 87:2592-2605.
22. Jin S.-H., Nelson P.B. Interrupted speech perception: the effects of hearing sensitivity and frequency resolution. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2010, 128:881-889.
23. Kong Y.-Y., Stickney G.S., Zeng F.-G. Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005, 117:1351-1361.
24. Miller G.A., Licklider J.C. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1950, 22:167-173.
25. 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.
26. Pavlovic C.V., Studebaker G.A., Sherbecoe R.L. An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1986, 80:50-57.
27. Pavlovic C.V. Speech recognition and five articulation indexes. Hearing Instruments 1991, 42:20-23.
28. Powers G.L., Speaks C. Intelligibility of temporally interrupted speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1973, 54:661-667.
29. 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.
30. Reiss L.A.J., Turner C.W., Erenberg S.R., Gantz B.J. Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryn 2007, 8:241-257.
31. Schnotz A., Digeser F., Hoppe U. Speech with gaps: effects of periodic interruptions on speech intelligibility. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 2009, 61:263-268.
32. Shannon R.V., Zeng F.-G., Kamath V., Wygonski J., Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995, 270:303-304.
33. Shannon R.V., Galvin J.J., Başkent D. Holes in hearing. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2002, 3:185-199.
34. Steeneken H.J.M., Houtgast T. A physical method for measuring speechtransmission quality. J. Acoust. Soc. Am 1980, 67:318-326.
35. Studebaker G.A., Sherbecoe R.L. Frequency - importance functions for speech recognition. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing and Performance 1993, Allyn and Bacon, Boston. G.A. Studebaker, I. Hochberg (Eds.).
36. 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.
37. Versfeld N.J., Daalder L., Festen J.M., Hourgast T. Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2000, 107:1671-1684.
38. Zhang T., Dorman M.F., Spahr A.J. 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 2010, 31:63-69.