Patterns of phoneme perception errors by listeners with cochlear implants as a function of overall speech perception ability.

Many studies have noted great variability in speech perception ability among postlingually deafened adults with cochlear implants. This study examined phoneme misperceptions for 30 cochlear implant listeners using either the Nucleus-22 or Clarion version 1.2 device to examine whether listeners with better overall speech perception differed qualitatively from poorer listeners in their perception of vowel and consonant features. In the first analysis, simple regressions were used to predict the mean percent-correct scores for consonants and vowels for the better group of listeners from those of the poorer group. A strong relationship between the two groups was found for consonant identification, and a weak, nonsignificant relationship was found for vowel identification. In the second analysis, it was found that less information was transmitted for consonant and vowel features to the poorer listeners than to the better listeners; however, the pattern of information transmission was similar across groups. Taken together, results suggest that the performance difference between the two groups is primarily quantitative. The results underscore the importance of examining individuals' perception of individual phoneme features when attempting to relate speech perception to other predictor variables.

[1]  R S Tyler,et al.  Consonant recognition by some of the better cochlear-implant patients. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  G S Donaldson,et al.  Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Colette M McKay,et al.  Frequency-to-electrode allocation and speech perception with cochlear implants. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  A. Liberman,et al.  The motor theory of speech perception revised , 1985, Cognition.

[5]  A van Wieringen,et al.  Natural vowel and consonant recognition by Laura cochlear implantees. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[6]  G M Clark,et al.  Gap detection by early-deafened cochlear-implant subjects. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Keith R. Kluender,et al.  Virtues and perils of an empiricist approach to speech perception , 1999 .

[8]  M. D. Wang,et al.  Consonant confusions in noise: a study of perceptual features. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  R V Shannon,et al.  Effects of electrode location and spacing on phoneme recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[11]  M W Skinner,et al.  Identification of Speech by Cochlear Implant Recipients with the Multipeak (MPEAK) and Spectral Peak (SPEAK) Speech Coding Strategies I. Vowels , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[12]  Ulf Andersson,et al.  Phonological representaion and speech understanding with cochlear implants in deafened adults , 1998, AVSP.

[13]  B J Gantz,et al.  Initial Independent Results with the Clarion Cochlear Implant , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[14]  H J McDermott,et al.  Perceptual Performance of Subjects with Cochlear Implants Using the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor (SMSP) and the Mini Speech Processor (MSP) , 1993, Ear and hearing.

[15]  H J McDermott,et al.  The relationship between speech perception and electrode discrimination in cochlear implantees. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  J. Hillenbrand,et al.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  M W Skinner,et al.  Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the multipeak (MPEAK) and spectral peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies II. Consonants. , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[19]  A E Vandali,et al.  Emphasis of short-duration acoustic speech cues for cochlear implant users. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  E. Rushing,et al.  Aggressive papillary adenoma of the cerebellopontine angle: case report of an endolymphatic sac tumor. , 1997, American Journal of Otolaryngology.

[21]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Temporal cues for consonant recognition: training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  P. Ladefoged A course in phonetics , 1975 .

[23]  M. J. Osberger,et al.  SAS-CIS Preference Study in Postlingually Deafened Adults Implanted with the Clarion® Cochlear Implant , 1999, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.