Effects of low-pass filtering on intelligibility of periodically interrupted speech

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Volumn 131, Issue 2, 2012, Pages

  Bhargava, Pranesh ^a,b   Bakent, Deniz ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGING EFFECTS; COMBINED EFFECT; CUT-OFF; HEARING IMPAIRMENTS; HEARING-IMPAIRED PERSONS; HIGH FREQUENCY HF; LOW-PASS FILTERING; NORMAL-HEARING LISTENERS; SUPRATHRESHOLD;

AUDITION; SIGNAL FILTERING AND PREDICTION;

SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; MALE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PHYSIOLOGY; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; MALE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84857404028     PISSN: 00014966     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1121/1.3670000     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Baer, T., and Moore, B. C. J. (1993). Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in noise., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94, 1229-1241.
2. Bakent, D. (2006). Speech recognition in normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss as a function of the number of spectral channels., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 2908-2925.
3. Bakent, D. (2010). Phonemic restoration in sensorineural hearing loss does not depend on baseline speech perception scores., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128, EL169-EL174.
4. Bakent, D., Eiler, C. L., and Edwards, B. (2010). Phonemic restoration by hearing-impaired listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss., Hear. Res. 260, 54-62.
5. Chatterjee, M., Peredo, F., Nelson, D., and Bakent, D. (2010). Recognition of interrupted sentences under conditions of spectral degradation., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127, 37-41.
6. Fabry, D. A., and van Tasell, D. J. (1986). Masked and filtered simulation of hearing loss: Effects on consonant recognition., J. Speech Hear. Res. 29, 170-178.
7. Fletcher, H. (1953). Speech and Hearing in Communication (Van Nostrand, New York).
8. Gilbert, G., Bergeras, I., Voillery, D., and Lorenzi, C. (2007). Effects of periodic interruptions on the intelligibility of speech based on temporal fine-structure or envelope cues., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122, 1336-1339.
9. Gnansia, D., Pressnitzer, D., Pean, V., Meyer, B., and Lorenzi, C. (2010). Intelligibility of interrupted and interleaved speech in normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implantees., Hear. Res. 265, 46-53.
10. Gordon-Salant, S., and Fitzgibbons, P. J. (1993). Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners., J. Speech Hear. Res. 36, 1276-1285.
11. Horwitz, A. R., Dubno, J. R., and Ahlstrom, J. B. (2002). Recognition of low-pass-filtered consonants in noise with normal and impaired high-frequency hearing., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111, 409-416.
12. Jin, S -H., and Nelson, P. B. (2006). Speech perception in gated noise: The effects of temporal resolution., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119, 881-889.
13. Jin, S -H., and Nelson, P. B. (2010). Interrupted speech perception: The effects of hearing sensitivity and frequency resolution., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128, 3097-3108.
14. Lacroix, P. G., Harris, J. D., and Randolph, K. J. (1979). Multiplicative effects on sentence comprehension for combined acoustic distortions., J. Speech Hear. Res. 22, 259-269.
15. Miller, G. A., and Licklider, J. C. (1950). The intelligibility of interrupted speech., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 22, 167-173.
16. Nelson, P. B., and Jin, S.-H. (2004). Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: Cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115, 2286-2294.
17. Owens, E., Benedict, M., and Schubert, E. D. (1972). Consonant phonemic errors associated with pure-tone configurations and certain kinds of hearing impairment., J. Speech Hear. Res. 15, 308-315.
18. Powers, G. L., and Speaks, C. (1973). Intelligibility of temporally interrupted speech., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 54, 661-667.
19. Schnotz, A., Digeser, F., and Hoppe, U. (2009). Speech with gaps: Effects of periodic interruptions on speech intelligibility., Folia Phoniatr. Logop. 61, 263-268.
20. Shafiro, V., Sheft, S., and Risley, R. (2011). Perception of interrupted speech: Cross-rate variation in the intelligibility of gated and concatenated sentences., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130, 106-114.
21. Studebaker, G. A. (1985). Research Note: A rationalized' arcsine transform., J. Speech Hear. Res. 28, 455-462.
22. Versfeld, N. J., Daalder, L., Festen, J. M., and Houtgast, T. (2000). Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107, 1671-1684.
23. Walden, B. E., Schwartz, D. M., Montgomery, A. A., and Prosek, R. A. (1981). A comparison of the effects of hearing impairment and acoustic filtering on consonant recognition., J. Speech Hear. Res. 24, 32-43.