Low-frequency speech cues and simulated electric-acoustic hearing

被引:84
作者
Brown, Christopher A. [1 ]
Bacon, Sid P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Arizona State Univ, Psychoacoust Lab, Dept Speech & Hearing Sci, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA
关键词
acoustic signal processing; acoustoelectric effects; hearing; speech; speech intelligibility; COCHLEAR-IMPLANT; FUNDAMENTAL-FREQUENCY; PERCEPTUAL SEPARATION; RECOGNITION; RECEPTION; VOWELS; NOISE;
D O I
10.1121/1.3068441
中图分类号
O42 [声学];
学科分类号
070206 ; 082403 ;
摘要
The addition of low-frequency acoustic information to real or simulated electric stimulation (so-called electric-acoustic stimulation or EAS) often results in large improvements in intelligibility, particularly in competing backgrounds. This may reflect the availability of fundamental frequency (F0) information in the acoustic region. The contributions of F0 and the amplitude envelope (as well as voicing) of speech to simulated EAS was examined by replacing the low-frequency speech with a tone that was modulated in frequency to track the F0 of the speech, in amplitude with the envelope of the low-frequency speech, or both. A four-channel vocoder simulated electric hearing. Significant benefit over vocoder alone was observed with the addition of a tone carrying F0 or envelope cues, and both cues combined typically provided significantly more benefit than either alone. The intelligibility improvement over vocoder was between 24 and 57 percentage points, and was unaffected by the presence of a tone carrying these cues from a background talker. These results confirm the importance of the F0 of target speech for EAS (in simulation). They indicate that significant benefit can be provided by a tone carrying F0 and amplitude envelope cues. The results support a glimpsing account of EAS and argue against segregation.
引用
收藏
页码:1658 / 1665
页数:8
相关论文
共 37 条
[31]   Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers [J].
Qin, MK ;
Oxenham, AJ .
JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 2003, 114 (01) :446-454
[32]  
ROSEN S, 1986, British Journal of Audiology, V20, P61, DOI 10.3109/03005368609078999
[33]   Performance of subjects fit with the advanced bionics CII and nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices [J].
Spahr, AJ ;
Dorman, MF .
ARCHIVES OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD & NECK SURGERY, 2004, 130 (05) :624-628
[34]   Acoustic cues to lexical segmentation: A study of resynthesized speech [J].
Spitzer, Stephanie M. ;
Liss, Julie M. ;
Mattys, Sven L. .
JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 2007, 122 (06) :3678-3687
[35]   Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers [J].
Stickney, GS ;
Zeng, FG ;
Litovsky, R ;
Assmann, P .
JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 2004, 116 (02) :1081-1091
[36]   Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: Benefits of residual acoustic hearing [J].
Turner, CW ;
Gantz, BJ ;
Vidal, C ;
Behrens, A ;
Henry, BA .
JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 2004, 115 (04) :1729-1735
[37]   Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system -: New technology for severe hearing loss [J].
von Ilberg, C ;
Kiefer, J ;
Tillein, J ;
Pfenningdorff, T ;
Hartmann, R ;
Stürzebecher, E ;
Klinke, R .
ORL-JOURNAL FOR OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY AND ITS RELATED SPECIALTIES, 1999, 61 (06) :334-340