No Access Submitted: 19 February 2014 Accepted: 28 August 2014 Published Online: 23 October 2014
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 136, 1845 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4895698
more...View Affiliations
View Contributors
  • Susan Nittrouer
  • Joanna H. Lowenstein
  • Taylor Wucinich
  • Eric Tarr
Cochlear implants have improved speech recognition for deaf individuals, but further modifications are required before performance will match that of normal-hearing listeners. In this study, the hypotheses were tested that (1) implant processing would benefit from efforts to preserve the structure of the low-frequency formants and (2) time-varying aspects of that structure would be especially beneficial. Using noise-vocoded and sine-wave stimuli with normal-hearing listeners, two experiments examined placing boundaries between static spectral channels to optimize representation of the first two formants and preserving time-varying formant structure. Another hypothesis tested in this study was that children might benefit more than adults from strategies that preserve formant structure, especially time-varying structure. Sixty listeners provided data to each experiment: 20 adults and 20 children at each of 5 and 7 years old. Materials were consonant-vowel-consonant words, four-word syntactically correct, meaningless sentences, and five-word syntactically correct, meaningful sentences. Results showed that listeners of all ages benefited from having channel boundaries placed to optimize information about the first two formants, and benefited even more from having time-varying structure. Children showed greater gains than adults only for time-varying formant structure. Results suggest that efforts would be well spent trying to design processing strategies that preserve formant structure.
The authors wish to thank Jamie Kuess for writing the software to present stimuli. This work was supported by Grant No. R01 DC000633 from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders.
  1. 1. Başkent, D., and Shannon, R. V. (2004). “ Frequency-place compression and expansion in cochlear implant listeners,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 3130–3140. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1804627, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  2. 2. Blamey, P. J., Martin, L. F., and Clark, G. M. (1985). “ A comparison of three speech coding strategies using an acoustic model of a cochlear implant,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 77, 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.392260, Google ScholarScitation
  3. 3. Boothroyd, A., and Nittrouer, S. (1988). “ Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 84, 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.396976, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  4. 4. Darwin, C. (2003). “ Sine-wave speech produced automatically using a script for the PRAAT program,” available at http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Chris_Darwin/SWS/ (Last viewed February 20, 2014). Google Scholar
  5. 5. Donaldson, G. S., Dawson, P. K., and Borden, L. Z. (2011). “ Within-subjects comparison of the HiRes and Fidelity120 speech processing strategies: Speech perception and its relation to place-pitch sensitivity,” Ear Hear. 32, 238–250. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181fb8390, Google ScholarCrossref
  6. 6. Eisenberg, L. S., Shannon, R. V., Schaefer Martinez, A., Wygonski, J., and Boothroyd, A. (2000). “ Speech recognition with reduced spectral cues as a function of age,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107, 2704–2710. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428656, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  7. 7. Falkner, A., Ball, V., Rosen, S., Moore, B. C. J., and Fourcin, A. (1992). “ Speech pattern hearing aids for the profoundly impaired: Speech perception and auditory abilities,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91, 2136–2155. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.403674, Google ScholarScitation
  8. 8. Firszt, J. B., Koch, D. B., Downing, M., and Litvak, L. (2007). “ Current steering creates additional pitch percepts in adult cochlear implant recipients,” Otol. Neurotol. 28, 629–636. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mao.1845281803.36574.bc, Google ScholarCrossref
  9. 9. Fishman, K. E., Shannon, R. V., and Slattery, W. H. (1997). “ Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor,” J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 40, 1201–1215. https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4005.1201, Google ScholarCrossref
  10. 10. Fourakis, M. S., Hawks, J. W., Holden, L. K., Skinner, M. W., and Holden, T. A. (2004). “ Effect of frequency boundary assignment on vowel recognition with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy,” J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 15, 281–299 https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15.4.3. Google ScholarCrossref
  11. 11. Fourcin, A. J. (1990). “ Prospects for speech pattern element aids,” Acta Otolaryngol. Suppl. 469, 257–267. Google Scholar
  12. 12. Friesen, L. M., Shannon, R. V., Başkent, D., and Wang, X. (2001). “ Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110, 1150–1163. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1381538, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  13. 13. Fu, Q. J., and Shannon, R. V. (2002). “ Frequency mapping in cochlear implants,” Ear Hear. 23, 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1097/18453446-200208000-18459, Google ScholarCrossref
  14. 14. Goldman, R., and Fristoe, M. (2000). Goldman Fristoe 2: Test of Articulation ( American Guidance Service, Circle Pines, MN), 146 pp. Google Scholar
  15. 15. Greenwood, D. D. (1990). “ A cochlear frequency-position function for several species–29 years later,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87, 2592–2605. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.399052, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  16. 16. Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., and Wheeler, K. (1995). “ Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97, 3099–3111. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.411872, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  17. 17. Kewley-Port, D., Pisoni, D. B., and Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1983). “ Perception of static and dynamic acoustic cues to place of articulation in initial stop consonants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 73, 1779–1793. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.389402, Google ScholarScitation
  18. 18. Kiefer, J., von, I. C., Rupprecht, V., Hubner-Egner, J., and Knecht, R. (2000). “ Optimized speech understanding with the continuous interleaved sampling speech coding strategy in patients with cochlear implants: Effect of variations in stimulation rate and number of channels,” Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 109, 1009–1020 https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940010901105. Google ScholarCrossref
  19. 19. Kuhl, P. K., and Meltzoff, A. N. (1982). “ The bimodal perception of speech in infancy,” Science 218, 1138–1141. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7146899, Google ScholarCrossref
  20. 20. Levitt, H. (1991). “ Signal processing for sensory aids: A unified view,” Am. J. Otol. 12(Suppl), 52–55. Google Scholar
  21. 21. Loizou, P. C., Dorman, M., and Tu, Z. (1999). “ On the number of channels needed to understand speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106, 2097–2103. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.427954, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  22. 22. Lowenstein, J. H., Nittrouer, S., and Tarr, E. (2012). “ Children weight dynamic spectral structure more than adults: Evidence from equivalent signals,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132, EL443–EL449. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4763554, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  23. 23. Mackersie, C. L., Boothroyd, A., and Minniear, D. (2001). “ Evaluation of the Computer-Assisted Speech Perception Assessment Test (CASPA),” J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 12, 390–396. Google Scholar
  24. 24. Martin, N., and Brownell, R. (2011). Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT), 4th ed. ( Academic Therapy Publications, Novato, CA), 99 pp. Google Scholar
  25. 25. Nilsson, M., Soli, S. D., and Sullivan, J. A. (1994). “ Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 1085–1099. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.408469, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  26. 26. Nittrouer, S., and Boothroyd, A. (1990). “ Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87, 2705–2715. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.399061, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  27. 27. Nittrouer, S., and Lowenstein, J. H. (2010). “ Learning to perceptually organize speech signals in native fashion,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127, 1624–1635. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3298435, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  28. 28. Nittrouer, S., Lowenstein, J. H., and Packer, R. (2009). “ Children discover the spectral skeletons in their native language before the amplitude envelopes,” J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percep. Perform. 35, 1245–1253. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015020, Google ScholarCrossref
  29. 29. Nittrouer, S., Tarr, E., Bolster, V., Caldwell-Tarr, A., Moberly, A. C., and Lowenstein, J. H. (2014). “ Low-frequency signals support perceptual organization of implant-simulated speech for adults and children,” Int. J. Audiol. 53, 270–284. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2013.871649, Google ScholarCrossref
  30. 30. Remez, R. E., Cheimets, C. B., and Thomas, E. F. (2013). “ On the tolerance of spectral blur in the perception of words,” Proc. Meet. Acoust. 19, 1–6 https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4800254. Google ScholarScitation
  31. 31. Remez, R. E., Rubin, P. E., Pisoni, D. B., and Carrell, T. D. (1981). “ Speech perception without traditional speech cues,” Science 212, 947–949. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7233191, Google ScholarCrossref
  32. 32. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F. G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., and Ekelid, M. (1995). “ Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues,” Science 270, 303–304. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.270.5234.303, Google ScholarCrossref
  33. 33. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F. G., and Wygonski, J. (1998). “ Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104, 2467–2476. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.423774, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  34. 34. Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1983). “ Limits on alternative auditory representations of speech,” Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 405, 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1983.tb31615.x, Google ScholarCrossref
  35. 35. Tye-Murray, N., Lowder, M., and Tyler, R. S. (1990). “ Comparison of the F0F2 and F0F1F2 processing strategies for the Cochlear Corporation cochlear implant,” Ear Hear. 11, 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1097/18453446-199006000-18455, Google ScholarCrossref
  36. 36. Wilkinson, G. S., and Robertson, G. J. (2006). The Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT), 4th ed. ( Psychological Assessment Resources, Lutz, FL), 494 pp. Google Scholar
  37. 37. Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., Lawson, D. T., Wolford, R. D., Eddington, D. K., and Rabinowitz, W. M. (1991). “ Better speech recognition with cochlear implants,” Nature 352, 236–238. https://doi.org/10.1038/352236a0, Google ScholarCrossref
  1. © 2014 Acoustical Society of America.