Effects of age on f0 discrimination and intonation perception in simulated electric and electroacoustic hearing

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 75-83

  Souza, Pamela ^a   Arehart, Kathryn ^b   Miller, Christi Wise ^c   Muralimanohar, Ramesh Kumar ^b  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMMUNICATION AID; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PHONETICS; PROSTHESIS; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AGING; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COMMUNICATION AIDS FOR DISABLED; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHONETICS; PITCH DISCRIMINATION; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; SOFTWARE; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 78651381450     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181eccfe9     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Arehart, K. (1994). Effects of harmonic content on complex-tone fundamental- frequency discrimination in hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 3574-3585.
2. Arehart, K., & Burns, E. M. (1999). A comparison of monotic and dichotic complex-tone pitch perception in listeners with hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 993-997.
3. Arehart, K., Souza, P., Muralimanohar, R., et al. (2010). Effects of age on concurrent vowel perception in acoustic and simulated electro-acoustic hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res. Epublished ahead of print August 5, 2010.
4. Bachorowski, J. A. (1999). Vocal expression and perception of emotion. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 8, 53-57.
5. Bachorowski, J. A., & Owren, M. J. (1999). Acoustic correlates of talker sex and individual talker identity are present in a short vowel segment produced in running speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 1054-1063.
6. Binns, C., & Culling, J. F. (2007). The role of fundamental frequency contours in the perception of speech against interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 1765.
7. Brokx, J. P., & Noteboom, S. G. (1982). Intonation and the perceptual segregation of competing voices. J Phonetics, 10, 23-36.
8. Brown, C. A., & Bacon, S. P. (2009a). Achieving electric-acoustic benefit with a modulated tone. Ear Hear, 30, 489-493.
9. Brown, C. A., & Bacon, S. P. (2009b). Low-frequency speech cues and simulated electric-acoustic hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 1658-1665.
10. Byrne, D., & Dillon, H. (1986). The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear, 7, 257-265.
11. Chatterjee, M., & Peng, S. C. (2008). Processing F0 with cochlear implants: Modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition. Hear Res, 235, 143-156.
12. Cullington, H. E., & Zeng, F. G. (2008). Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlearimplant, and implant simulation subjects. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 450-461.
13. Darwin, C. J., Brungart, D. S., Simpson, B. D. (2003). Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 2913-2922.
14. Darwin, C. J., & Hukin, R. W. (2000). Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody and talker characteristics in selective attention. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 970-977.
15. Drullman, R., Bronkhorst, A. W. (2004). Speech perception and talker segregation: Effects of level, pitch, and tactile support with multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 3090-3098.
16. Faulkner, A., Rosen, S., Smith, C. (2000). Effects of the salience of pitch and periodicity information on the intelligibility of four-channel vocoded speech: Implications for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 108, 1877-1887.
17. Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., McHugh, P. R. (1975). "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res, 12, 189-198.
18. Gantz, B. J., Hansen, M. R., Turner, C. W., et al. (2009). Hybrid 10 clinical trial: Preliminary results. Audiol Neurootol, 14(suppl 1), 32-38.
19. Gantz, B. J., & Turner, C. W. (2003). Combining acoustic and electrical hearing. Laryngoscope, 113, 1726-1730.
20. Grant, K. W., Summers, V., Leek, M. R. (1998). Modulation rate detection and discrimination by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 104(2 Pt 1), 1051-1060.
21. Green, T., Faulkner, A., Rosen, S. (2002). Spectral and temporal cues to pitch in noise-excited vocoder simulations of continuous-interleavedsampling cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 2155-2164.
22. Green, T., Faulkner, A., Rosen, S. (2004). Enhancing temporal cues to voice pitch in continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 116(4 Pt 1), 2298-2310.
23. Greenwood, D. D. (1990). A cochlear frequency-position function for several species-29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am, 87, 2592-2605.
24. Gstoettner, W., Kiefer, J., Baumgartner, W. D., et al. (2004). Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation. Acta Otolaryngol, 124, 348-352.
25. Haggard, M., Ambler, S., Callow, M. (1970). Pitch as a voicing cue. J Acoust Soc Am, 47, 613-617.
26. Houtsma, A. J., & Smurzynski, J. (1990). Pitch identification and discrimination for complex tones with many harmonics. J Acoust Soc Am, 87, 304-310.
27. Klatt, D. (1980). Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer. J Acoust Soc Am, 67(13-33).
28. Kong, Y. Y., & Carlyon, R. P. (2007). Improved speech recognition in noise in simulated binaurally combined acoustic and electric stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 3717-3727.
29. Kuo, Y. C., Rosen, S., Faulkner, A. (2008). Acoustic cues to tonal contrasts in Mandarin: Implications for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 2815.
30. Laneau, J., & Moonen, M. (2006). Factors affecting the use of noise-band vocoders as acoustic models for pitch perception in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 491-506.
31. Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 49, 467.
32. Li, N., & Loizou, P. D. (2008a). Factors influencing glimpsing of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 1165-1172.
33. Li, N., & Loizou, P. D. (2008b). A glimpsing account for the benefit of simulated combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 2287-2294.
34. Macdonald, E. N., Pichora-Fuller, K., Schneider, B. A. (2010). Effects on speech intelligibility of temporal jittering and spectral smearing of the high-frequency components of speech. Hear Res, 261, 63-66.
35. Oxenham, A. J. (2008). Pitch perception and auditory stream segregation: Implications for hearing loss and cochlear implants. Trends Amplif, 12, 316-331.
36. Patterson, R. D., Johnson-Davies, D., Milroy, R. (1978). Amplitudemodulated noise: The detection of modulation versus the detection of modulation rate. J Acoust Soc Am, 63, 1904-1911.
37. Paulmann, S., Pell, M. D., Kotz, S. A. (2008). How aging affects the recognition of emotional speech. Brain Lang, 104, 262-269.
38. Peng, S. C., Lu, N., Chatterjee, M. (2009). Effects of cooperating and conflicting cues on speech intonation recognition by cochlear implant users and normal hearing listeners. Audiol Neurootol, 14, 327-337.
39. Peterson, G., & Barney, H. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. J Acoust Soc Am, 24, 175-184.
40. Pichora-Fuller, K., Schneider, B. A., Macdonald, E. N., et al. (2007). Temporal jitter disrupts speech intelligibility: A simulation of auditory aging. Hear Res, 223, 114-121.
41. Pichora-Fuller, K., & Souza, P. (2003). Effects of aging on auditory processing of speech. Int J Audiol, 42(suppl 2), 2S11-12S16.
42. Qin, M. K., & Oxenham, A. J. (2006). Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 2417-2426.
43. Rossi-Katz, J., & Arehart, K. (2009). Message and talker identification in older adults: Effects of task, distinctiveness of the talkers' voices and meaningfulness of the competing message. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 52, 435-453.
44. Smith, C. L. (2002). Prosodic finality and sentence type in French. Lang Speech, 45(Pt 2), 141-178.
45. Souza, P. (2000). Older listeners' use of temporal cues altered by compression amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 43, 661-674.
46. Souza, P., & Boike, K. T. (2006). Combining temporal-envelope cues across channels: Effects of age and hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 49, 138-149.
47. Souza, P., & Kitch, V. (2001). The contribution of amplitude envelope cues to sentence identification in young and aged listeners. Ear Hear, 22, 112-119.
48. Souza, P., & Rosen, S. (2009). Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 126, 792-805.
49. Sterkers, O., Mosnier, I., Ambert-Dahan, E., et al. (2004). Cochlear implants in elderly people: Preliminary results. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl, 552, 64-67.
50. Stone, M. A., Fullgrabe, C., & Moore, B. C. J. (2008). Benefit of high-rate envelope cues in vocoder processing: Effect of number of channels and spectral region. J Acoust Soc Am, 124, 2272-2282.
51. Summers, V., & Leek, M. R. (1998). F0 processing and the separation of competing speech signals by listeners with normal hearing and with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 41, 1294-1306.
52. Turner, C. W., Gantz, B. J., Vidal, C., et al. (2004). Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: Benefits of residual acoustic hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 115, 1729-1735.
53. Vongpaisal, T., & Pichora-Fuller, K. (2007). Effect of age on F0 difference limen and concurrent vowel identification. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 1139-1156.
54. Whitmal, N. A., Poissant, S. F., Freyman, R. L., et al. (2007). Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: Effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 2376-2388.
55. Wilson, B. S., & Dorman, M. F. (2008). Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future. Hear Res, 242, 3-21.
56. Xu, L., & Pfingst, B. E. (2008). Spectral and temporal cues for speech recognition: Implications for auditory prostheses. Hear Res, 242, 132-140.
57. 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.
58. Xu, L., & Zheng, Y. (2007). Spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 1758.