Perceptual learning of spectrally degraded speech and environmental sounds.

Adaptation to the acoustic world following cochlear implantation does not typically include formal training or extensive audiological rehabilitation. Can cochlear implant (CI) users benefit from formal training, and if so, what type of training is best? This study used a pre-/posttest design to evaluate the efficacy of training and generalization of perceptual learning in normal hearing subjects listening to CI simulations (eight-channel sinewave vocoder). Five groups of subjects were trained on words (simple/complex), sentences (meaningful/anomalous), or environmental sounds, and then were tested using an open-set identification task. Subjects were trained on only one set of materials but were tested on all stimuli. All groups showed significant improvement due to training, which successfully generalized to some, but not all stimulus materials. For easier tasks, all types of training generalized equally well. For more difficult tasks, training specificity was observed. Training on speech did not generalize to the recognition of environmental sounds; however, explicit training on environmental sounds successfully generalized to speech. These data demonstrate that the perceptual learning of degraded speech is highly context dependent and the type of training and the specific stimulus materials that a subject experiences during perceptual learning has a substantial impact on generalization to new materials.

[1]  J. P. Egan Articulation testing methods , 1948, The Laryngoscope.

[2]  Robert V Shannon Speech and music have different requirements for spectral resolution. , 2005, International review of neurobiology.

[3]  Endel Tulving,et al.  Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. , 1973 .

[4]  Donald K. Eddington,et al.  Cochlear Implants in Adults and Children , 1995 .

[5]  Graeme M. Clark Learning to understand speech with the cochlear implant , 2002 .

[6]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Speech Perception and Implicit Memory: Evidence for Detailed Episodic Encoding of Phonetic Events 1 , 2000 .

[7]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Recognizing Spoken Words: The Neighborhood Activation Model , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[8]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[9]  C S Watson,et al.  Individual differences in the processing of speech and nonspeech sounds by normal-hearing listeners. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  John D. Bransford,et al.  Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing , 1977 .

[11]  Daniel L. Schacter,et al.  Auditory Priming for Nonverbal Information: Implicit and Explicit Memory for Environmental Sounds , 1995, Consciousness and Cognition.

[12]  Brian Gygi,et al.  Spectral-temporal factors in the identification of environmental sounds. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  M F Dorman,et al.  The Identification of Consonants and Vowels by Cochlear Implant Patients Using a 6‐Channel Continuous Interleaved Sampling Processor and by Normal‐Hearing Subjects Using Simulations of Processors with Two to Nine Channels , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  The number of spectral channels required for speech recognition depends on the difficulty of the listening situation. , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[15]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Perception of "Elliptical Speech" by an Adult Hearing-Impaired Listener with a Cochlear Implant: Some Preliminary Findings on Coarse-Coding in Speech Perception , 2000 .

[16]  B J Gantz,et al.  Performance over time with a nucleus or Ineraid cochlear implant. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

[17]  Brian Gygi,et al.  Individual differences in auditory abilities. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  William W. Gaver What in the World Do We Hear? An Ecological Approach to Auditory Event Perception , 1993 .

[19]  K. D. Kryter,et al.  ARTICULATION-TESTING METHODS: CONSONANTAL DIFFERENTIATION WITH A CLOSED-RESPONSE SET. , 1965, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  C Y Chiu,et al.  Specificity of auditory implicit and explicit memory: is perceptual priming for environmental sounds exemplar specific? , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[21]  S. Scott,et al.  Functional Integration across Brain Regions Improves Speech Perception under Adverse Listening Conditions , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[22]  Charlotte M Reed,et al.  Reception of Environmental Sounds Through Cochlear Implants , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[23]  Julio González,et al.  Gender and speaker identification as a function of the number of channels in spectrally reduced speech. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Cynthia G. Clopper,et al.  Effects of open-set and closed-set task demands on spoken word recognition. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[25]  J. Jenkins,et al.  Identifying the sources of environmental sounds with a varying number of spectral channels , 2003 .

[26]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Intelligibility of normal speech I: Global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics , 1996, Speech Commun..

[27]  Graeme M. Clark,et al.  Cochlear implants in adults and children. , 1995, NIH consensus statement.

[28]  M. Marcell,et al.  Confrontation Naming of Environmental Sounds , 2000, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[29]  M. Dorman,et al.  Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Moderate auditory training can improve speech performance of adult cochlear implant patients , 2005 .

[31]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

[32]  Jeffrey R Binder,et al.  Human brain regions involved in recognizing environmental sounds. , 2004, Cerebral cortex.