The effects of selective consonant amplification on sentence recognition in noise by hearing-impaired listeners

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Volumn 130, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 3028-3037

  Saripella, Rithika ^a   Loizou, Philipos C ^a   Thibodeau, Linda ^b   Alford, Jennifer A ^b  

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

^b Callier Center for Communication Disorders   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC LANDMARKS; HEARING-IMPAIRED LISTENERS; HIGH FREQUENCY HF; LISTENING TESTS; LOW FREQUENCY; LOW SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO; LOW SNR; NORMAL-HEARING LISTENERS; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD;

AMPLIFICATION; AUDITION; SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

LINGUISTICS;

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; AUDITORY REHABILITATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CASE CONTROL STUDY; HEARING AID; HUMAN; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PATIENT; PERCEPTION; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RECOGNITION; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CUES; HEARING AIDS; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); REHABILITATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 81355150818     PISSN: 00014966     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1121/1.3641407     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. ANSI (2003). S3.22, Specification of Hearing Aid Characteristics (Acoustical Society of America, New York).
2. Assmann, P. F., and Summerfield, Q. (2004). The perception of speech under adverse acoustic conditions., in Speech Processing in the Auditory System, edited by, S. Greenberg, W. A. Ainsworth, A. N. Popper, and, R. R. Fay, (Springer, New York), pp. 231-308.
3. Bentler, R. A., and Chiou, L -K. (2006). Digital noise reduction: An overview., Trends Amplif. 10, 67-83.
4. Bentler, R., Wu, Y., Kettel, J., and Hurtig, R. (2008). Digital noise reduction: Outcomes from laboratory and field studies., Intern. J. Audiol. 47, 447-460. 10.1080/14992020802033091
5. Byrne, D., Dillon, H., Ching, T., Katsch, R., and Keidser G. (2001). NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: Characteristics and comparisons with other procedures., J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 12 (1), 37-51. (Pubitemid 33040892)
6. Ching, T. Y., Dillon, H., and Byrne, D. (1998). Speech recognition hearing-impaired listeners: Predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103, 1128-1140. 10.1121/1.421224 (Pubitemid 28087582)
7. Edwards, B. (2004). Hearing aids and hearing impairment., in Speech Processing in the Auditory System, edited by, S. Greenberg, (Springer Verlag, New York), pp. 339-421.
8. Freyman, R. L., Nerbonne, G. P., and Cote. H.A. (1991). Effect of consonant-vowel ratio modification on amplitude envelope cues for consonant recognition., J. Speech Hear. Res. 34, 415-426.
9. Freyman, R. L., and Nerbonne, G. P. (1989). The importance of consonant-vowel intensity ratio in the intelligibility of voiceless consonants., J. Speech Hear. Res. 32, 524-535. (Pubitemid 19230583)
10. Gordon-Salant, S. (1986). Recognition of natural and time/intensity altered CVs by young and elderly subjects with normal hearing., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 80, 1599-1607. 10.1121/1.394324 (Pubitemid 17208415)
11. Gordon-Salant, S. (1987). Effects of acoustic modification on consonant recognition by elderly hearing-impaired listeners., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 81, 1199-1202. 10.1121/1.394643
12. Hogan, C., and Turner, C. (1998). High-frequency audibility: Benefits for hearing- impaired listeners., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104, 432-441. 10.1121/1.423247 (Pubitemid 28321731)
13. IEEE. (1969). IEEE recommended practice speech quality measurements., IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. AU-17, 225-246.
14. Kawahara, H., Masuda-Katsuse, I., and de Cheveigne, A. (1999). Restructuring speech representations using a pitch-adaptive time-frequency smoothing and an instantaneous-frequency-based F0 extraction: Possible role of a repetitive structure in sounds., Speech Comm. 27, 187-207. 10.1016/S0167- 6393(98)00085-5
15. Kewley-Port, D., Burkle, Z., and Lee, J. (2007). Contribution of consonant versus vowel information to sentence intelligibility for young normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired listeners., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122, 2365-2375. 10.1121/1.2773986 (Pubitemid 47493362)
16. Kondoz, A. (2004). Digital Speech, 2nd ed. (Wiley, West Sussex, UK), Chap., pp. 149-197.
17. Li, N., and Loizou, P. (2007). Factors influencing glimpsing of speech in noise., J. Acoust. Soc. Am 122, 1165-1172. 10.1121/1.2749454 (Pubitemid 47205513)
18. Li, N., and Loizou, P. (2008). The contribution of obstruent consonants and acoustic landmarks to speech recognition in noise., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124 (6), 3947-3958. 10.1121/1.2997435
19. Li, N., and Loizou, P. (2010). Masking release and the contribution of obstruent consonants on speech recognition in noise by cochlear implant users., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128 (3), 1262-1271. 10.1121/1.3466845
20. Loizou, P. C. (2007). Speech Enhancement: Theory and Practice (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL), Appendix C, pp. 589-599.
21. Luce, P., and Charles-Luce, J. (1985). Contextual effects on vowel duration, closure duration and the consonant/vowel ratio in speech production., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 78 (6), 1949-1957. 10.1121/1.392651 (Pubitemid 16181277)
22. Montgomery, A. A., and Edge, R. (1988). Evaluation of two speech enhancement techniques to improve intelligibility for hearing-impaired adults., J. Speech Hear. Res. 31, 386-393.
23. Molis, M., and Summers, V. (2003). Effects of high presentation levels on recognition of low- and high-frequency speech., ARLO 4, 124128. 10.1121/1.1605151 (Pubitemid 38800344)
24. Moore, B. C. J. (2001). Dead regions in the cochlea: Diagnosis, perceptual consequences, and implications for the fitting of hearing aids., Trends Amplif. 5, 1-34. 10.1177/108471380100500102 (Pubitemid 32221961)
25. Owens, E., Talbott, C., and Schubert, E. (1968). Vowel discrimination of hearing impaired listeners., J. Speech Hear. Res. 11, 648-655.
26. Owens, E., Benedict, M., and Schubert, E. (1972). Consonant phonemic errors associated with pure-tone configurations and certain kinds of hearing impairment., J. Speech Hear. Res. 15, 308-322.
27. Parikh, G., and Loizou, P. (2005). The influence of noise on vowel and consonant cues., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118, 3874-3888. 10.1121/1.2118407 (Pubitemid 41820886)
28. Port, R., and Dalby, J. (1982). Consonant/vowel ratio as a cue of voicing in English., Percept. Psychophys. 32, 141-152. 10.3758/BF03204273
29. Skinner, M. W. (1980). Speech intelligibility in noise-induced hearing loss: Effects of high-frequency compensation., J. Acoust. Soc Am. 67 (1), 306-317. 10.1121/1.384463 (Pubitemid 10136599)
30. Stelmachowicz, P., Mace, A., Kopun, J., and Carney, E. (1993). Long-term and short- term characteristics of speech: Implications for hearing-aid selection for young children., J. Speech Hear. Res. 36, 609-620. (Pubitemid 23174695)
31. Stevens, K. N. (2002). Towards a model of lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111 (4), 1872-1891. 10.1121/1.1458026 (Pubitemid 34297244)
32. Studebaker, G. A. (1985). A rationalized' arcsine transform., J. Speech Hear. Res. 28, 455-462.
33. Studebaker, G., Sherbecoe, R., McDaniel, M., and Gwaltney, C. (1999). Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105, 2431-2444. 10.1121/1.426848 (Pubitemid 29174330)
34. Turner, C. W., and Cummings, K. J. (1999). Speech audibility for listeners with high- frequency hearing loss., Am. J. Audiol. 8, 47-56. 10.1044/1059-0889(1999/002)
35. Turner, C. W., and Robb, M. P. (1987). Audibility and recognition of stop consonants in normal and hearing-impaired subjects., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 81, 1566-1573. 10.1121/1.394509 (Pubitemid 17114351)
36. Yund, E., and Buckles, K. (1995). Multichannel compression in hearing aids: Effect of number of channels on speech discrimination in noise., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97, 1206-1223. 10.1121/1.413093