The intelligibility of noise-vocoded speech: Spectral information available from acrosschannel comparison of amplitude envelopes

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 278, Issue 1711, 2011, Pages 1595-1600

  Roberts, Brian ^a   Summers, Robert J ^a   Bailey, Peter J ^b  

^a ASTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Formant frequencies; Intelligibility; Noise vocoded speech; Spectral cues

Indexed keywords

AMPLITUDE; ASSESSMENT METHOD; FREQUENCY ANALYSIS; NOISE; RECONSTRUCTION; SPECTRAL ANALYSIS; VOCALIZATION;

EID: 79954547351     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1554     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Dudley, H. 1939 Remaking speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 11, 169-177. (doi:10.1121/1.1916020)
2. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F.-G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J. & Ekelid, M. 1995 Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270, 303-304. (doi:10.1126/science. 270.5234.303)
3. Dorman, M., Loizou, P. & 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. (doi:10.1121/1.419603)
4. Li, N. & Loizou, P. C. 2009 Factors affecting masking release in cochlear-implant vocoded speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126, 338-346. (doi:10.1121/1.3133702)
5. Loebach, J. L., Pisoni, D. B. & Svirsky, M. A. 2009 Transfer of auditory perceptual learning with spectrally reduced speech to speech and nonspeech tasks: implications for cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 30, 662-674. (doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181b9c92d)
6. Chatterjee, M., Peredo, F., Nelson, D. & Başkent, D. 2010 Recognition of interrupted sentences under conditions of spectral degradation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127, EL37-EL41. (doi:10.1121/1.3284544)
7. Eisner, F., McGettigan, C., Faulkner, A., Rosen, S. & Scott, S. K. 2010 Inferior frontal gyrus activation predicts individual differences in perceptual learning of cochlearimplant simulations. J. Neurosci. 30, 7179-7186. (doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4040-09.2010)
8. Chen, F. & Loizou, P. C. 2010 Contribution of consonant landmarks to speech recognition in simulated acoustic-electric hearing. Ear Hear. 31, 259-267. (doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181c7db17)
9. Hopkins, K. and Moore, B. C. J. 2010 The importance of temporal fine structure information in speech at different spectral regions for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127, 1595-1608. (doi:10. 1121/1.3293003)
10. Nittrouer, S., Lowenstein, J. H. & Packer, R. 2009 Children discover the spectral skeletons in their native language before the amplitude envelopes. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 35, 1245-1253.
11. Rosen, S. 1992 Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 336, 367-373. (doi:10.1098/rstb.1992.0070)
12. 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. (doi:10.1121/1.1886405)
13. Xu, L. & Zheng, Y. 2007 Spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122, 1758-1764. (doi:10.1121/1.2767000)
14. Xu, L. & Pfingst, B. E. 2008 Spectral and temporal cues for speech recognition: implications for auditory prostheses. Hear. Res. 242, 132-140. (doi:10.1016/j.heares. 2007.12.010)
15. Loizou, P., Dorman, M. & Powell, V. 1998 The recognition of vowels produced by men, women, boys and girls by cochlear implant patients using a six-channel CIS processor. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103, 1141-1149. (doi:10.1121/1.421248)
16. Bench, J., Kowal, A. & Bamford, J. 1979 The BKB (Bamford- Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br. J. Audiol. 13, 108-112. (doi:10.3109/ 03005367909078884)
17. Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. 2008 PRAAT: doing phonetics by computer [software package], version 5.0.18. See http://www.praat.org/ (1 April 2008).
18. 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. (doi:10. 1121/1.3158835)
19. Rosenberg, A. E. 1971 Effect of glottal pulse shape on the quality of natural vowels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 49, 583-590. (doi:10.1121/1.1912389)
20. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 1969 IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. AU-17, 225-246.
21. Davis, M. H., Johnsrude, I. S., Hervais-Adelman, A., Taylor, K. & McGettigan, C. 2005 Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 134, 222-241. (doi:10.1037/0096- 3445.134.2.222)
22. Duddington, J. 2008 eSpeak 1.36. See http://espeak. sourceforge.net/.
23. Young, S. J. et al. 2006 The HTK book, version 3.4 Manual. Cambridge, UK: Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge.
24. Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. 1967 Statistical methods, 6th edn. Ames, IA: Iowa University Press.
25. Loizou, P. C., Dorman, M. & Tu, Z. 1999 On the number of channels needed to understand speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106, 2097-2103. (doi:10.1121/1. 427954)
26. Mullennix, J., Pisoni, D. & Martin, C. 1989 Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 85, 365-378. (doi:10.1121/1.397688)
27. Assmann, P. F. & Katz, W. F. 2005 Synthesis fidelity and time-varying spectral change in vowels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 886-895. (doi:10.1121/1.1852549)
28. Moore, B. C. J. 2003 An introduction to the psychology of hearing, 5th edn. London, UK: Academic Press.
29. Remez, R. E. & Rubin, P. E. 1990 On the perception of speech from time-varying acoustic information: contributions of amplitude variation. Percept. Psychophys. 48, 313-325.
30. Bailey, P. J., Summerfield, Q. & Dorman, M. 1977 On the identification of sine-wave analogues of certain speech sounds. Haskins Lab. Status Rep. SR-51/52, 1-25.
31. Remez, R. E., Rubin, P. E., Pisoni, D. B. & Carrell, T. D. 1981 Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science 212, 947-950. (doi:10.1126/science.7233191)
32. Roberts, B., Summers, R. J. & Bailey, P. J. 2010 The perceptual organization of sine-wave speech under competitive conditions. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128, 804-817. (doi:10.1121/1.3445786)
33. Apoux, F. & Healy, E. F. 2009 On the number of auditory filter outputs needed to understand speech: further evidence for auditory channel independence. Hear. Res. 255, 99-108. (doi:10.1016/j.heares.2009.06.005)
34. Fox, R. A., Jacewicz, E. & Feth, L. L. 2008 Spectral integration of dynamic cues in the perception of syllable- initial stops. Phonetica 65, 19-44. (doi:10.1159/ 000130014)
35. Glasberg, B. R. & Moore, B. C. J. 1990 Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data. Hear. Res. 47, 103-138. (doi:10.1016/0378-5955(90)90170-T)
36. Delattre, P. C., Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S. & Gerstman, L. J. 1952 An experimental study of the acoustic determinants of vowel color; observations on one- and two-formant vowels synthesized from spectrographic patterns. Word 8, 195-210.
37. Carlson, R., Fant, G. & Granstrom, B. 1975 Twoformant models, pitch and vowel perception. In Auditory analysis and perception of speech (eds G. Fant & M. A. A. Tatham), pp. 55-82. London, UK: Academic Press.
38. Chistovich, L. A. 1985 Central auditory processing of peripheral vowel spectra. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 77, 789-805. (doi:10.1121/1.392049)