Recognition of temporally interrupted and spectrally degraded sentences with additional unprocessed low-frequency speech.
Recognition of periodically interrupted sentences (with an interruption rate of 1.5 Hz, 50% duty cycle) was investigated under conditions of spectral degradation, implemented with a noiseband vocoder, with and without additional unprocessed low-pass filtered speech (cutoff frequency 500 Hz). Intelligibility of interrupted speech decreased with increasing spectral degradation. For all spectral degradation conditions, however, adding the unprocessed low-pass filtered speech enhanced the intelligibility. The improvement at 4 and 8 channels was higher than the improvement at 16 and 32 channels: 19% and 8%, on average, respectively. The Articulation Index predicted an improvement of 0.09, in a scale from 0 to 1. Thus, the improvement at poorest spectral degradation conditions was larger than what would be expected from additional speech information. Therefore, the results implied that the fine temporal cues from the unprocessed low-frequency speech, such as the additional voice pitch cues, helped perceptual integration of temporally interrupted and spectrally degraded speech, especially when the spectral degradations were severe. Considering the vocoder processing as a cochlear implant simulation, where implant users' performance is closest to 4 and 8-channel vocoder performance, the results support additional benefit of low-frequency acoustic input in combined electric-acoustic stimulation for perception of temporally degraded speech.
Başkent
Deniz
D
Department of Otorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. d.baskent@med.umcg.nl
Chatterjee
Monita
M
D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001301:Audiometry, Pure-Tone; D001302:Audiometry, Speech; D001309:Auditory Threshold; D003054:Cochlear Implants; D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010898:Pitch Perception; D021641:Recognition, Psychology; D012815:Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted; D013018:Sound Spectrography; D013061:Speech Acoustics; D013065:Speech Intelligibility; D013067:Speech Perception; D013997:Time Factors; D014833:Voice Quality; D055815:Young Adult
Hear Res. 2010 Feb;260(1-2):54-62
19922784
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Mar;117(3 Pt 1):1351-61
15807023
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2005 Mar;6(1):19-27
15735937
J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Mar;125(3):1658-65
19275323
J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Aug;110(2):1150-63
11519582
Audiol Neurootol. 2009;14 Suppl 1:8-13
19390170
J Acoust Soc Am. 1973 Sep;54(3):661-7
4754389
J Acoust Soc Am. 2000 Mar;107(3):1671-84
10738820
Percept Psychophys. 1992 Mar;51(3):211-7
1561046
J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Apr;115(4):1729-35
15101651
J Speech Hear Res. 1993 Dec;36(6):1276-85
8114494
Science. 1995 Oct 13;270(5234):303-4
7569981
J Acoust Soc Am. 1980 Jan;67(1):318-26
7354199
Ear Hear. 2010 Feb;31(1):63-9
20050394
Ear Hear. 2009 Oct;30(5):489-93
19546806
J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 Apr;119(4):2417-26
16642854
J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Sep;122(3):1336
17927396
J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Feb;113(2):1073-80
12597200
J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Oct;128(4):EL169-74
20968321
J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 May;115(5 Pt 1):2286-94
15139640
J Acoust Soc Am. 1986 Jul;80(1):50-7
3745665
J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Aug;128(2):881-9
20707457
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2002 Jun;3(2):185-99
12162368
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011 Feb;54(1):190-210
20689036
Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2009;61(5):263-8
19696487
J Acoust Soc Am. 1990 Jun;87(6):2592-605
2373794
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007 Jun;8(2):241-57
17347777
J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Feb;127(2):EL37-41
20136176