The relative importance of temporal envelope information for intelligibility prediction: A study on cochlear-implant vocoded speech

Medical Engineering and Physics

Volumn 33, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1033-1038

  Chen, Fei ^a  

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

Author keywords

Cochlear implants; Speech intelligibility prediction; Vocoded speech

Indexed keywords

EFFECTIVE TOOL; INTELLIGIBILITY SCORES; NORMAL-HEARING LISTENERS; RELATIVE IMPORTANCE; SIMULATION EXPERIMENTS; TEMPORAL ENVELOPES; VOCODED SPEECH; WEIGHT VECTOR;

AUDITION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; FORECASTING; SPEECH COMMUNICATION; SPEECH TRANSMISSION; VOCODERS;

SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NORMAL HUMAN; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH AND LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; TEMPORAL LOBE; VALIDATION PROCESS;

COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 80051822789     PISSN: 13504533     EISSN: 18734030     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.04.004     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Shannon R., Zeng F., Kamath V., Wygonski J., Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995, 270(5234):303-304.
2. Friesen L., Shannon R., Baskent 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(2):1150-1163.
3. Crouzet O, Ainsworth W, On the various influences of envelope information on the perception of speech in adverse conditions: an analysis of between-channel envelope correlation, Workshop on Consistent and Reliable Acoustic Cues for Sound Analysis, Aalborg, Denmark, 2001.
4. Stone M., Moore B. Effect of the speed of a single-channel dynamic range compressor on intelligibility in a competing speech task. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 114(2):1023-1034.
5. Stone M., Moore B. Side effects of fast-acting dynamic range compression that affect intelligibility in a competing speech task. J Acoust Soc Am 2004, 116(4):2311-2323.
6. Stone M., Moore B. Quantifying the effects of fast-acting compression on the envelope of speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2007, 121(3):1654-1664.
7. Steeneken H., Houtgast T. Mutual dependence of the octave-band weights in predicting speech intelligibility. Speech Commun 1999, 28(2):109-203.
8. Steeneken H., Houtgast T. Validation of the revised STIr method. Speech Commun 2002, 38(3-4):413-425.
9. Apoux F., Bacon S. Relative importance of temporal information in various frequency regions for consonant identification in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2004, 116(3):1671-1680.
10. Doherty K., Turner C. Use of the correlational method to estimate a listener's weighting function of speech. J Acoust Soc Am 1996, 100(6):3769-3773.
11. Kasturi K., Loizou P., Dorman M., Spahr T. The intelligibility of speech with holes in the spectrum. J Acoust Soc Am 2002, 112(3):1102-1111.
12. American National Standards Institute, Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index, S3.5-1997, 1997.
13. Ma J., Hu Y., Loizou P. Objective measures for predicting speech intelligibility in noisy conditions based on new band-importance functions. J Acoust Soc Am 2009, 125(5):3387-3405.
14. Goldsworthy R., Greenberg J. Analysis of speech-based speech transmission index methods with implications for nonlinear operations. J Acoust Soc Am 2004, 116(6):3679-3689.
15. Houtgast T., Steeneken H. A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. J Acoust Soc Am 1985, 77(3):1069-1077.
16. Holube I., Kollmeier K. Speech intelligibility prediction in hearing-impaired listeners based on a psychoacoustically motivated perception model. J Acoust Soc Am 1996, 100(3):1703-1715.
17. Greenwood D. A cochlear frequency-position function for several species - 29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am 1990, 87(6):2592-2605.
18. IEEE, IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements, IEEE Trans Audio and Electroacoustics AU-17, 1969; 225-46.
19. Loizou P. Speech enhancement: theory and practice 2007, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
20. Qin M., Oxenham A. Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of the envelope-vocoder processed speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2006, 119(4):2417-2426.
21. Dorman M., Loizou P., 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(4):2403-2411.
22. Chen F., Loizou P. Contribution of consonant landmarks to speech recognition in simulated acoustic-electric hearing. Ear Hear 2010, 31(2):259-267.
23. Scalart P., Filho J. Speech enhancement based on a priori signal to noise estimation. Proceedings of the international conference on acoustics, speech, and signal processing, vol. 2 1996, 629-632.
24. Ephraim Y., Malah D. Speech enhancement using a minimum mean-square error log-spectral amplitude estimator. IEEE Trans Acoust Speech Signal Process 1985, 33(2):443-445.
25. Chen F., Loizou P. Predicting the intelligibility of vocoded speech. Ear Hear 2011, 32(3):331-338.
26. Whitmal N., Poissant S., Freyman R., Helfer K. Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience. J Acoust Soc Am 2007, 122(4):2376-2388.
27. Stone M., Füllgrabe C., Moore B. Benefit of high-rate envelope cues in vocoder processing: effect of number of channels and spectral region. J Acoust Soc Am 2008, 124(4):2272-2282.
28. Xu L., Thompson C., Pfingst B. Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 2005, 117(5):3255-3267.
29. Rix A., Beerends J., Hollier M., Hekstra A. Perceptual evaluation of speech quality (PESQ) - a new method for speech quality assessment of telephone networks and codecs. Proceedings of IEEE international conference on acoust, speech, signal processing, vol. 2 2001, 749-752.
30. Musch H., Buus S. Using statistical decision theory to predict speech intelligibility. I. Model structure. J Acoust Soc Am 2001, 109(6):2896-2909.