Effects of introducing low-frequency harmonics in the perception of vocoded telephone speech.
Several studies have demonstrated that telephone use presents a challenge for most cochlear implant (CI) users, and this is attributed mainly to the narrow bandwidth (300-3400 Hz) introduced by the telephone network. The present study focuses on answering the question whether telephone speech recognition in noise can be improved by introducing, prior to vocoder processing, low-frequency harmonic information encompassing the missing (due to the telephone network) information residing in the 0-300 Hz band. Experiment 1 regenerates the main harmonics and adjacent partials within the 0-600 Hz range in corrupted (by steady noise) telephone speech which has been vocoded to simulate electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS). Results indicated that introducing the main harmonics alone did not produce any benefits in intelligibility. Substantial benefit (20%) was observed, however, when both main harmonics and adjacent partials were regenerated in the acoustic portion of EAS-vocoded telephone speech. A similar benefit was noted in Experiment 2 when low-frequency harmonic information was introduced prior to processing noise-corrupted telephone speech using an eight-channel vocoder. The gain in telephone speech intelligibility in noise obtained when low-frequency harmonic information was introduced can be attributed to the listeners having more reliable access to a combination of F0, glimpsing and lexical segmentation cues.
Hu
Yi
Y
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201, USA. huy@uwm.edu
Loizou
Philipos C
PC
D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D001302:Audiometry, Speech; D003054:Cochlear Implants; D003463:Cues; D006801:Humans; D009622:Noise; D010470:Perceptual Masking; D010898:Pitch Perception; D017603:Signal Detection, Psychological; D012815:Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted; D013067:Speech Perception; D013689:Telephone
Audiol Neurootol. 2008;13(2):105-12
18057874
Am J Audiol. 2006 Dec;15(2):127-32
17182877
Ear Hear. 2010 Feb;31(1):63-9
20050394
J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Dec;124(6):3947
19206819
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Dec;118(6):3874-88
16419830
Laryngoscope. 2005 May;115(5):796-802
15867642
J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Jan;127(1):427-34
20058988
J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Jul;126(1):338-46
19603890
Am J Audiol. 2004 Dec;13(2):200-12
15903146
J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Apr;115(4):1729-35
15101651
J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 May;127(5):3145-53
21117763
Ear Hear. 1992 Apr;13(2):70-9
1601195
Science. 1995 Oct 13;270(5234):303-4
7569981
Ear Hear. 1992 Oct;13(5):311-9
1487091
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Mar;117(3 Pt 1):1351-61
15807023
J Speech Hear Res. 1985 Sep;28(3):455-62
4046587
J Acoust Soc Am. 2002 Apr;111(4):1872-91
12002871
J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Mar;125(3):1658-65
19275323
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1989 Aug;142:8-11
2504098
J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Feb;125(2):EL77-83
19206836
J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Apr;123(4):2287-94
18397033
Int J Audiol. 2004 Jun;43(6):356-62
15457818
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999 Dec;121(6):802-4
10580241
Ear Hear. 2009 Oct;30(5):489-93
19546806
J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 Apr;119(4):2417-26
16642854
Ear Hear. 2007 Apr;28(2 Suppl):66S-69S
17496651
Audiol Neurootol. 2006;11 Suppl 1:63-8
17063013
J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Jun;125(6):EL236-41
19507928
Hear Res. 1990 Aug 1;47(1-2):103-38
2228789
J Acoust Soc Am. 1983 Sep;74(3):750-3
6630731
J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Jun;121(6):3717-27
17552722