Low-frequency Signals Support Perceptual Organization of Implant-simulated Speech for Adults and Children

Overview

Journal Int J Audiol

Publisher Informa Healthcare

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2014 Jan 25

PMID 24456179

Citations 7

Authors

Susan Nittrouer

Eric Tarr

Virginia Bolster

Amanda Caldwell-Tarr

Aaron C Moberly

Joanna H Lowenstein

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Using signals processed to simulate speech received through cochlear implants and low-frequency extended hearing aids, this study examined the proposal that low-frequency signals facilitate the perceptual organization of broader, spectrally degraded signals.

Design: In two experiments, words and sentences were presented in diotic and dichotic configurations as four-channel noise-vocoded signals (VOC-only), and as those signals combined with the acoustic signal below 0.25 kHz (LOW-plus). Dependent measures were percent correct recognition, and the difference between scores for the two processing conditions given as proportions of recognition scores for VOC-only. The influence of linguistic context was also examined.

Study Sample: Participants had normal hearing. In all, 40 adults, 40 seven-year-olds, and 20 five-year-olds participated.

Results: Participants of all ages showed benefits of adding the low-frequency signal. The effect was greater for sentences than words, but no effect of diotic versus dichotic presentation was found. The influence of linguistic context was similar across age groups, and did not contribute to the low-frequency effect. Listeners who had poorer VOC-only scores showed greater low-frequency effects.

Conclusion: The benefit of adding a low-frequency signal to a broader, spectrally degraded signal derives in some part from its facilitative influence on perceptual organization of the sensory input.

Citing Articles

How to vocode: Using channel vocoders for cochlear-implant research.

Cychosz M, Winn M, Goupell M J Acoust Soc Am. 2024; 155(4):2407-2437.

PMID: 38568143 PMC: 10994674. DOI: 10.1121/10.0025274.

The Important Role of Contextual Information in Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users and Its Consequences in Speech Tests.

Dingemanse J, Goedegebure A Trends Hear. 2019; 23:2331216519838672.

PMID: 30991904 PMC: 6472157. DOI: 10.1177/2331216519838672.

Linguistic Context Versus Semantic Competition in Word Recognition by Younger and Older Adults With Cochlear Implants.

Amichetti N, Atagi E, Kong Y, Wingfield A Ear Hear. 2017; 39(1):101-109.

PMID: 28700448 PMC: 5741484. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000469.

Non-auditory neurocognitive skills contribute to speech recognition in adults with cochlear implants.

Moberly A, Houston D, Castellanos I Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2017; 1(6):154-162.

PMID: 28660253 PMC: 5467524. DOI: 10.1002/lio2.38.

Measuring the effects of spectral smearing and enhancement on speech recognition in noise for adults and children.

Nittrouer S, Tarr E, Wucinich T, Moberly A, Lowenstein J J Acoust Soc Am. 2015; 137(4):2004-14.

PMID: 25920851 PMC: 4417020. DOI: 10.1121/1.4916203.

References

Carlson M, Driscoll C, Gifford R, Service G, Tombers N, Hughes-Borst B . Implications of minimizing trauma during conventional cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2011; 32(6):962-8. PMC: 4127076. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182204526. View

Studdert-Kennedy M, Shankweiler D, Pisoni D . Auditory and Phonetic Processes in Speech Perception: Evidence from a Dichotic Study(). Cogn Psychol. 2012; 3(3):455-466. PMC: 3523680. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(72)90017-5. View

Nittrouer S, BOOTHROYD A . Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990; 87(6):2705-15. DOI: 10.1121/1.399061. View

Whalen D, Liberman A . Speech perception takes precedence over nonspeech perception. Science. 1987; 237(4811):169-71. DOI: 10.1126/science.3603014. View

Rosen S, Faulkner A, Wilkinson L . Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000; 106(6):3629-36. DOI: 10.1121/1.428215. View

Studdert-Kennedy M . Limits on alternative auditory representations of speech. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1983; 405:33-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1983.tb31615.x. View

Fox R, Jacewicz E, Feth L . Spectral integration of dynamic cues in the perception of syllable-initial stops. Phonetica. 2008; 65(1-2):19-44. PMC: 2849108. DOI: 10.1159/000130014. View

Nittrouer S, Lowenstein J . Learning to perceptually organize speech signals in native fashion. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010; 127(3):1624-35. PMC: 2856515. DOI: 10.1121/1.3298435. View

Stelmachowicz P, Hoover B, Lewis D, Kortekaas R, Pittman A . The relation between stimulus context, speech audibility, and perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001; 43(4):902-14. DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4304.902. View

10.

Ching T, Incerti P, Hill M . Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears. Ear Hear. 2004; 25(1):9-21. DOI: 10.1097/01.AUD.0000111261.84611.C8. View

11.

Chang J, Bai J, Zeng F . Unintelligible low-frequency sound enhances simulated cochlear-implant speech recognition in noise. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2006; 53(12 Pt 2):2598-601. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2006.883793. View

12.

Baskent D, Chatterjee M . Recognition of temporally interrupted and spectrally degraded sentences with additional unprocessed low-frequency speech. Hear Res. 2010; 270(1-2):127-33. PMC: 2997937. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2010.08.011. View

13.

Fayad J, Linthicum Jr F . Multichannel cochlear implants: relation of histopathology to performance. Laryngoscope. 2006; 116(8):1310-20. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000227176.09500.28. View

14.

Kimchi R . Perceptual organization and visual attention. Prog Brain Res. 2009; 176:15-33. DOI: 10.1016/S0079-6123(09)17602-1. View

15.

. NIH consensus conference. Cochlear implants in adults and children. JAMA. 1995; 274(24):1955-61. View

16.

Helms J, Muller J, Schon F, Moser L, Arnold W, Janssen T . Evaluation of performance with the COMBI40 cochlear implant in adults: a multicentric clinical study. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1997; 59(1):23-35. DOI: 10.1159/000276901. View

17.

Mackersie C, BOOTHROYD A, Minniear D . Evaluation of the Computer-assisted Speech Perception Assessment Test (CASPA). J Am Acad Audiol. 2001; 12(8):390-6. View

18.

Remez R, Rubin P, Pisoni D, Carrell T . Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science. 1981; 212(4497):947-9. DOI: 10.1126/science.7233191. View

19.

Blamey P . Are spiral ganglion cell numbers important for speech perception with a cochlear implant?. Am J Otol. 1997; 18(6 Suppl):S11-2. View

20.

CHISTOVICH L . Central auditory processing of peripheral vowel spectra. J Acoust Soc Am. 1985; 77(3):789-805. DOI: 10.1121/1.392049. View