Predicting the intelligibility of vocoded speech

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 331-338

  Chen, Fei ^a   Loizou, Philipos C ^a  

^a The University of Texas at Dallas   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ALGORITHMS; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; HUMANS; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 79955535250     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181ff3515     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. ANSI (1997). Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. Report No. ANSI S3.5-1997. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute.
2. Arehart, K., Kates, J., Anderson, M., et al. (2007). Effects of noise and distortion on speech quality judgments in normal-hearing and hearingimpaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 1150-1164. (Pubitemid 47205512)
3. Chen, F., amp; Loizou, P. (2010). Contribution of consonant landmarks to speech recognition in simulated acoustic-electric hearing. Ear Hear, 31, 259-267.
4. Dorman, M., Loizou, P., Rainey, D. (1997a). 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. (Pubitemid 27441393)
5. Dorman, M., Loizou, P., Rainey, D. (1997b). Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am, 102, 2993-2996.
6. Dorman, M., Loizou, P., Fitzke, J., et al. (1998). The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels. J Acoust Soc Am, 104, 3583-3585. (Pubitemid 29006020)
7. Dorman, M., Spahr, A., Loizou, P., et al. (2005). Acoustic simulations of combined electric and acoustic hearing (EAS). Ear Hear, 26, 371-380. (Pubitemid 41765191)
8. Drullman, R., Festen, J. M., Plomp, R. (1994). Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 1053-1064. (Pubitemid 24056370)
9. Ephraim, Y., amp; Malah, D. (1985). Speech enhancement using a minimum mean-square error log-spectral amplitude estimator. IEEE Trans Acoust Speech Signal Process, 33, 443-445.
10. Fletcher, H. (1940). Auditory patterns. Rev Mod Phys, 12, 47-55.
11. French, N. R., amp; Steinberg, J. C. (1947). Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am, 19, 90-119.
12. Friesen, L. M., Shannon, R. V., Baskent, D., et al. (2001). Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 110, 1150-1163. (Pubitemid 32734748)
13. Glasberg, B., amp; Moore, B. (1990). Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data. Hear Res, 47, 103-138. (Pubitemid 20244652)
14. Goldsworthy, R., amp; Greenberg, J. (2004). Analysis of speech-based speech transmission index methods with implications for nonlinear operations. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 3679-3689. (Pubitemid 40029948)
15. Healy, E., amp; Steinbach, H. (2007). The effect of smoothing filter slope and spectral frequency on temporal speech information. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 1177-1181. (Pubitemid 46192716)
16. Houtgast, T., amp; Steeneken, H. (1985). A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. J Acoust Soc Am, 77, 1069-1077.
17. Kasturi, K., amp; Loizou, P. (2007). Effect of frequency spacing on melody recognition: Acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, EL29-EL34. (Pubitemid 47205553)
18. Kasturi, K., Loizou, P., Dorman, M., et al. (2002). The intelligibility of speech with holes in the spectrum. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 1102-1111.
19. Kates, J. (1992). On using coherence to measure distortion in hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 2236-2244.
20. Kates, J., amp; Arehart, K. (2005). Coherence and the speech intelligibility index. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 2224-2237. (Pubitemid 40570480)
21. Kong, Y., amp; Carlyon, R. (2007). Improved speech recognition in noise in simulated binaurally combined acoustic and electric stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 3717-3727. (Pubitemid 46872129)
22. Li, N., amp; Loizou, P. (2008). A glimpsing account for the benefit of simulated combined acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 2287-2294. (Pubitemid 351503002)
23. Loizou, P. (2006). Speech Processing in Vocoder-Centric Cochlear Implants. In A. Moller (Ed). Cochlear and Brainstem Implants (pp. 109-143). Basel, New York: Karger. (Pubitemid 44338657)
24. Ludvigsen, C., Elberling, C., Keidser, G. (1993). Evaluation of a noise reduction method-Comparison of observed scores and scores predicted from STI. Scand Audiol Suppl, 38, 50-55. (Pubitemid 23362792)
25. Ma, J., Hu, Y., Loizou, P. (2009). Objective measures for predicting speech intelligibility in noisy conditions based on new band-importance functions. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 3387-3405.
26. Qin, M., amp; Oxenham, A. (2005). Effects of envelope-vocoder processing on F0 discrimination and concurrent-vowel identification. Ear Hear, 26, 451-460. (Pubitemid 41510891)
27. Qin, M., amp; Oxenham, A. (2006). Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of the envelope-vocoder processed speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 2417-2426.
28. Rhebergen, K. S., amp; Versfeld, N. J. (2005). A speech intelligibility index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 2181-2192. (Pubitemid 40570476)
29. Rosen, S. (1992). Temporal information in speech: Acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 336, 367-373.
30. Scalart, P., amp; Filho, J. (1996). Speech enhancement based on a priori signal to noise estimation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Atlanta, GA, 2, 629-632.
31. Shannon, R. V., Galvin, J. J., III, Baskent, D. (2001). Holes in hearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 3, 185-199. (Pubitemid 37128698)
32. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F. G., Kamath, V., et al. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303-304.
33. Souza, P., amp; Rosen, S. (2009). Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 126, 792-805.
34. Steeneken, H., amp; Houtgast, T. (1980). A physical method for measuring speech transmission quality. J Acoust Soc Am, 67, 318-326. (Pubitemid 10136600)
35. Stone, M., Fullgrabe, C., Moore, B. (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.
36. van Buuren, R. A., Festen, J. M., Houtgast, T. (1998). Compression and expansion of the temporal envelope: Evaluation of speech intelligibility and sound quality. J Acoust Soc Am, 105, 2903-2913. (Pubitemid 29218406)
37. van Wijngaarden, S., amp; Houtgast, T. (2004). Effect of talker and speaking style on the speech transmission index. J Acoust Soc Am, 115, 38L-41L.
38. Whitmal N., Poissant, S., Freyman, R., 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. (Pubitemid 47493363)
39. 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. (Pubitemid 40675185)
40. Xu, L., amp; Zheng, Y. (2007). Spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 1758-1764. (Pubitemid 47560537)