Top-down restoration of speech in cochlear-implant users

Hearing Research

Volumn 309, Issue , 2014, Pages 113-123

  Bhargava, Pranesh ^a,b   Gaudrain, Etienne ^a,b   Başkent, Deniz ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROSTIMULATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING ACUITY; HUMAN; LANGUAGE ABILITY; MALE; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PHONEME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT; SCORING SYSTEM; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH THERAPY; YOUNG ADULT;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; CORRECTION OF HEARING IMPAIRMENT; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PERSONS WITH HEARING IMPAIRMENTS; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84891469640     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: 18785891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.12.003     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Assmann P., Summerfield Q. The perception of speech under adverse conditions. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research 2004, 231-308. Springer, New York.
2. Bashford J.A., Riener K.R., Warren R.M. Increasing the intelligibility of speech through multiple phonemic restorations. Percept. Psychophys. 1992, 51:211-217.
3. Bashford J.A.J., Warren R.M. Perceptual synthesis of deleted phonemes. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1979, 65:S112.
4. Başkent D. Phonemic restoration in sensorineural hearing loss does not depend on baseline speech perception scores. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2010, 128:EL169-EL174.
5. Başkent D. Effect of speech degradation on top-down repair: phonemic restoration with simulations of cochlear implants and combined electric-acoustic stimulation. J.Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2012, 13:683-692.
6. Başkent D., Chatterjee M. Recognition of temporally interrupted and spectrally degraded sentences with additional unprocessed low-frequency speech. Hear. Res. 2010, 270:127-133.
7. Başkent D., Eiler C., Edwards B. Effects of envelope discontinuities on perceptual restoration of amplitude-compressed speech. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2009, 125:3995-4005.
8. Başkent D., Eiler C.L., Edwards B. Phonemic restoration by hearing-impaired listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. Hear. Res. 2010, 260:54-62.
9. Başkent D., Shannon R.V. Interactions between cochlear implant electrode insertion depth and frequency-place mapping. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005, 117:1405-1416.
10. Başkent D., Shannon R.V. Frequency transposition around dead regions simulated with a noiseband vocoder. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2006, 119:1156-1163.
11. Benard, M.R., Başkent, D., 2013a. Perceptual learning of temporally interrupted and spectrally degraded speech, submitted for publication.
12. Benard M.R., Başkent D. Perceptual learning of interrupted speech. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e58149.
13. Benard, M.R., Mensink, J.S., Başkent, D., 2013. Individual differences in top-down restoration of interrupted speech: Links to linguistic and cognitive abilities. JASA-EL, submitted for publication.
14. Bertoli S., Smurzynski J., Probst R. Temporal resolution in young and elderly subjects as measured by mismatch negativity and a psychoacoustic gap detection task. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2002, 113:396-406.
15. Best V., Ozmeral E.J., Kopčo N., Shinn-Cunningham B.G. Object continuity enhances selective auditory attention. PNAS 2008, 105:13174-13178.
16. Bhargava P., Başkent D. Phonemic restoration and continuity illusion with cochlear implants. Presented at the Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses, Asilomar Conference Grounds Pacific Grove, California 2011.
17. Bhargava, P., Gaudrain, E., Başkent, D., 2013. The intelligibility of interrupted speech: cochlear implant users and normal hearing listeners, submitted for publication.
18. Bland J.M., Altman D.G. Statistics notes: calculating correlation coefficients with repeated observations: part 2 - correlation between subjects. Brit. Med. J. 1995, 310:633.
19. Bland J.M., Altman D.G. Calculating correlation coefficients with repeated observations: part 1-correlation within subjects. Brit. Med. J. 1995, 310:446.
20. Bosman A.J. Speech Perception by the Hearing Impaired 1989, (Doctoral thesis), Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht.
21. Bregman A.S. Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound 1990, The MIT Press.
22. Carlyon R.P., Deeks J., Norris D., Butterfield S. The continuity illusion and vowel identification. Acta Acust. United Ac. 2002, 88:408-415.
23. Carlyon R.P., Micheyl C., Deeks J.M., Moore B.C.J. Auditory processing of real and illusory changes in frequency modulation (FM) phase. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 116:3629-3639.
24. Chatterjee M., Peredo F., Nelson D., Başkent D. Recognition of interrupted sentences under conditions of spectral degradation. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2010, 127:EL37-41.
25. Clarke J., Gaudrain E., Başkent D. Top-down repair of speech: adding pitch to spectrally degraded speech. Presented at the Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses, Lake Tahoe, California 2013.
26. Dudley H. Remaking speech. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1939, 11:169-177.
27. Fishman K.E., Shannon R.V., Slattery W.H. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J.Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 1997, 40:1201-1215.
28. Fogerty D., Humes L.E. The role of vowel and consonant fundamental frequency, envelope, and temporal fine structure cues to the intelligibility of words and sentences. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2012, 131:1490-1501.
29. Fogerty D., Kewley-Port D. Perceptual contributions of the consonant-vowel boundary to sentence intelligibility. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2009, 126:847-857.
30. Friesen L.M., Shannon R.V., Başkent 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, 110:1150-1163.
31. Fu Q.-J., Chinchilla S., Galvin J.J. The role of spectral and temporal cues in voice gender discrimination by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. J.Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2004, 5:253-260.
32. Fu Q.J., Shannon R.V., Wang X. Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1998, 104:3586-3596.
33. Gaudrain E., Carlyon R.P. Using Zebra-speech to study sequential and simultaneous speech segregation in a cochlear-implant simulation. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2013, 133:502-518.
34. Gordon-Salant S., Fitzgibbons P.J. Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners. J.Speech Hear. Res. 1993, 36:1276-1285.
35. Greenwood D.D. Acochlear frequency-position function for several species - 29 years later. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1990, 87:2592-2605.
36. Heinrich A., Carlyon R.P., Davis M.H., Johnsrude I.S. Illusory vowels resulting from perceptual continuity: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J.Cogn. Neurosci. 2008, 20:1737-1752.
37. Horváth J., Burgyán A. Distraction and the auditory attentional blink. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 2011, 73:695-701.
38. Huggins A.W.F. Distortion of the temporal pattern of speech: interruption and alternation. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1964, 36:1055-1064.
39. Kashino M. Phonemic restoration: the brain creates missing speech sounds. Acoust. Sci. Tech. 2006, 27:318-321.
40. Kidd G.R., Humes L.E. Effects of age and hearing loss on the recognition of interrupted words in isolation and in sentences. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2012, 131:1434-1448.
41. King A.J. Auditory neuroscience: filling in the gaps. Curr. Biol. 2007, 17:R799-R801.
42. Lister J., Besing J., Koehnke J. Effects of age and frequency disparity on gap discrimination. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2002, 111:2793-2800.
43. Lister J., Tarver K. Effect of age on silent gap discrimination in synthetic speech stimuli. J.Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2004, 47:257.
44. Loizou P.C. Mimicking the human ear. IEEE Sign. Proc. Magaz. 1998, 15:101-130.
45. Miller G.A., Licklider J.C.R. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1950, 22:167.
46. Nelson P.B., Jin S.-H. Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 115:2286-2294.
47. Nelson P.B., Jin S.-H., Carney A.E., Nelson D.A. Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 113:961-968.
48. Nie K., Barco A., Zeng F.-G. Spectral and temporal cues in cochlear implant speech perception. Ear Hear. 2006, 27:208-217.
49. Petkov C.I., O'Connor K.N., Sutter M.L. Illusory sound perception in macaque monkeys. J.Neurosci. 2003, 23:9155-9161.
50. Pichora-Fuller M.K., Schneider B.A., Benson N.J., Hamstra S.J., Storzer E. Effect of age on detection of gaps in speech and nonspeech markers varying in duration and spectral symmetry. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2006, 119:1143.
51. Powers G.L., Wilcox J.C. Intelligibility of temporally interrupted speech with and without intervening noise. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1977, 61:195.
52. Qin M.K., Oxenham A.J. Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 114:446-454.
53. Repp B.H. Perceptual restoration of a "missing" speech sound: auditory induction or illusion?. Percept. Psychophys. 1992, 51:14-32.
54. Repp B.H., Liberman A.M., Eccardt T., Pesetsky D. Perceptual integration of acoustic cues for stop, fricative, and affricate manner. J.Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1978, 4:621-637.
55. Riecke L., Mendelsohn D., Schreiner C., Formisano E. The continuity illusion adapts to the auditory scene. Hear. Res. 2009, 247:71-77.
56. Riecke L., Micheyl C., Vanbussel M., Schreiner C.S., Mendelsohn D., Formisano E. Recalibration of the auditory continuity illusion: sensory and decisional effects. Hear. Res. 2011, 277:152-162.
57. Riecke L., Vanbussel M., Hausfeld L., Baskent D., Formisano E., Esposito F. Hearing an illusory vowel in noise: suppression of auditory cortical activity. J.Neurosci. 2012, 32:8024-8034.
58. Rosen S. Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 1992, 336:367-373.
59. Saija J.D., Akyürek E.G., Andringa T.C., Başkent D. Perceptual restoration of degraded speech is preserved with advancing age. J.Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2013, 10.1007/s10162-013-0422-z.
60. Shahin A.J., Bishop C.W., Miller L.M. Neural mechanisms for illusory filling-in of degraded speech. Neuroimage 2009, 44:1133-1143.
61. Shannon R.V., Zeng F.-G., Kamath V., Wygonski J., Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995, 270:303-304.
62. Shinn-Cunningham B., Mehraei G., Bressler S., Masud S. Influences of perceptual continuity on everyday listening. ICA 2013 Montreal 2013, 010026. ASA, Montreal, Canada.
63. Shinn-Cunningham B.G. Object-based auditory and visual attention. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2008, 12:182-186.
64. Shinn-Cunningham B.G., Wang D. Influences of auditory object formation on phonemic restoration. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 123:295-301.
65. Srinivasan S., Wang D. Aschema-based model for phonemic restoration. Speech Commu. 2005, 45:63-87.
66. Stephens D. Hearing rehabilitation in a psychosocial framework. Scand. Audiol. Suppl. 1996, 43:57-66.
67. Stickney G.S., Zeng F.-G., Litovsky R., Assmann P. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 116:1081-1091.
68. Stilp C.E., Goupell M.J., Kluender K.R. Speech perception in simulated electric hearing exploits information-bearing acoustic change. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2013, 133:EL136-EL141.
69. Stilp C.E., Kluender K.R. Cochlea-scaled entropy, not consonants, vowels, or time, best predicts speech intelligibility. PNAS 2010, 107:12387-12392.
70. Strouse A., Ashmead D.H., Ohde R.N., Grantham D.W. Temporal processing in the aging auditory system. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1998, 104:2385-2399.
71. Studebaker G.A. A"rationalized" arcsine transform. J.Speech Hear. Res. 1985, 28:455-462.
72. Sugita Y. Neuronal correlates of auditory induction in the cat cortex. Neuroreport 1997, 8:1155-1159.
73. Tasell D.J.V., Greenfield D.G., Logemann J.J., Nelson D.A. Temporal cues for consonant recognition: training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1992, 92:1247-1257.
74. Thurlow W. An auditory figure-ground effect. Am. J. Psychol. 1957, 70:653-654.
75. Thurlow W.R., Elfner L.F. Continuity effects with alternately sounding tones. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1959, 31:1337-1339.
76. Verschuure J., Brocaar M.P. Intelligibility of interrupted meaningful and nonsense speech with and without intervening noise. Percept. Psychophys. 1983, 33:232-240.
77. Versfeld N.J., Daalder L., Festen J.M., Houtgast T. Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2000, 107:1671-1684.
78. Warren R.M. Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science 1970, 167:392-393.
79. Warren R.M. Perceptual restoration of obliterated sounds. Psychol. Bull. 1984, 96:371-383.
80. Warren R.M., Bashford J.A., Healy E.W., Brubaker B.S. Auditory induction: reciprocal changes in alternating sounds. Percept. Psychophys. 1994, 55:313-322.
81. Warren R.M., Obusek C.J. Speech perception and phonemic restorations. Percept. Psychophys. 1971, 9:358-362.
82. Warren R.M., Obusek C.J., Ackroff J.M. Auditory induction: perceptual synthesis of absent sounds. Science 1972, 176:1149-1151.