Effects of Source-to-listener Distance and Masking on Perception of Cochlear Implant Processed Speech in Reverberant Rooms

Overview

Journal J Acoust Soc Am

Publisher American Institute of Physics

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2009 Nov 10

PMID 19894835

Citations 8

Authors

Nathaniel A Whitmal

Sarah F Poissant

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Two experiments examined the effects of source-to-listener distance (SLD) on sentence recognition in simulations of cochlear implant usage in noisy, reverberant rooms. Experiment 1 tested sentence recognition for three locations in the reverberant field of a small classroom (volume=79.2 m(3)). Subjects listened to sentences mixed with speech-spectrum noise that were processed with simulated reverberation followed by either vocoding (6, 12, or 24 spectral channels) or no further processing. Results indicated that changes in SLD within a small room produced only minor changes in recognition performance, a finding likely related to the listener remaining in the reverberant field. Experiment 2 tested sentence recognition for a simulated six-channel implant in a larger classroom (volume=175.9 m(3)) with varying levels of reverberation that could place the three listening locations in either the direct or reverberant field of the room. Results indicated that reducing SLD did improve performance, particularly when direct sound dominated the signal, but did not completely eliminate the effects of reverberation. Scores for both experiments were predicted accurately from speech transmission index values that modeled the effects of SLD, reverberation, and noise in terms of their effects on modulations of the speech envelope. Such models may prove to be a useful predictive tool for evaluating the quality of listening environments for cochlear implant users.

Citing Articles

Impact of Reverberation on Speech Perception in Noise in Bimodal/Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users with and without Residual Hearing.

Konig C, Baumann U, Stover T, Weissgerber T J Clin Med. 2024; 13(17).

PMID: 39274482 PMC: 11396047. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13175269.

Speech Intelligibility and Spatial Release From Masking Improvements Using Spatial Noise Reduction Algorithms in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users.

Zedan A, Jurgens T, Williges B, Kollmeier B, Wiebe K, Galindo J Trends Hear. 2021; 25:23312165211005931.

PMID: 33926327 PMC: 8113364. DOI: 10.1177/23312165211005931.

Evaluation of a spectral subtraction strategy to suppress reverberant energy in cochlear implant devices.

Kokkinakis K, Runge C, Tahmina Q, Hu Y J Acoust Soc Am. 2015; 138(1):115-24.

PMID: 26233012 PMC: 5392068. DOI: 10.1121/1.4922331.

Use of amplitude modulation cues recovered from frequency modulation for cochlear implant users when original speech cues are severely degraded.

Won J, Shim H, Lorenzi C, Rubinstein J J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2014; 15(3):423-39.

PMID: 24532186 PMC: 4010597. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-014-0444-1.

Reverberation suppression in cochlear implants using a blind channel-selection strategy.

Hazrati O, Loizou P J Acoust Soc Am. 2013; 133(6):4188-96.

PMID: 23742370 PMC: 3689789. DOI: 10.1121/1.4804313.

References

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):2376-88. DOI: 10.1121/1.2773993. View

Dorman M, Loizou P, Fitzke J, Tu Z . The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 104(6):3583-5. DOI: 10.1121/1.423940. View

Goldsworthy R, Greenberg J . Analysis of speech-based Speech Transmission Index methods with implications for nonlinear operations. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005; 116(6):3679-89. DOI: 10.1121/1.1804628. View

Bistafa S, Bradley J . Reverberation time and maximum background-noise level for classrooms from a comparative study of speech intelligibility metrics. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000; 107(2):861-75. DOI: 10.1121/1.428268. View

Skinner M, Holden L, Holden T, Demorest M, Fourakis M . Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997; 101(6):3766-82. DOI: 10.1121/1.418383. View

Dawson P, Decker J, Psarros C . Optimizing dynamic range in children using the nucleus cochlear implant. Ear Hear. 2004; 25(3):230-41. DOI: 10.1097/01.aud.0000130795.66185.28. View

Nabelek A, Mason D . Effect of noise and reverberation on binaural and monaural word identification by subjects with various audiograms. J Speech Hear Res. 1981; 24(3):375-83. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.2403.375. View

Crandell C, Smaldino J . Classroom Acoustics for Children With Normal Hearing and With Hearing Impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2000; 31(4):362-370. DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461.3104.362. View

Payton K, Braida L . A method to determine the speech transmission index from speech waveforms. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000; 106(6):3637-48. DOI: 10.1121/1.428216. View

10.

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. 1998; 102(4):2403-11. DOI: 10.1121/1.419603. View

11.

Donaldson G, Allen S . Effects of presentation level on phoneme and sentence recognition in quiet by cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear. 2003; 24(5):392-405. DOI: 10.1097/01.AUD.0000090340.09847.39. View

12.

Fu Q, Shannon R . Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000; 107(1):589-97. DOI: 10.1121/1.428325. View

13.

STUDEBAKER G . A "rationalized" arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res. 1985; 28(3):455-62. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.2803.455. View

14.

Helfer K, Wilber L . Hearing loss, aging, and speech perception in reverberation and noise. J Speech Hear Res. 1990; 33(1):149-55. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.3301.149. View

15.

Bradley J, Reich R, Norcross S . On the combined effects of signal-to-noise ratio and room acoustics on speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999; 106(4 Pt 1):1820-8. DOI: 10.1121/1.427932. View

16.

Iglehart F . Speech perception by students with cochlear implants using sound-field systems in classrooms. Am J Audiol. 2004; 13(1):62-72. DOI: 10.1044/1059-0889(2004/009). View

17.

Qin M, Oxenham A . Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 114(1):446-54. DOI: 10.1121/1.1579009. View

18.

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):1150-63. DOI: 10.1121/1.1381538. View

19.

MACKEITH N, COLES R . Binaural advantages in hearing of speech. J Laryngol Otol. 1971; 85(3):213-32. DOI: 10.1017/s0022215100073369. View

20.

Duquesnoy A, PLOMP R . Effect of reverberation and noise on the intelligibility of sentences in cases of presbyacusis. J Acoust Soc Am. 1980; 68(2):537-44. DOI: 10.1121/1.384767. View