Development of a Large-Item Environmental Sound Test and the Effects of Short-Term Training with Spectrally-Degraded Stimuli

Objectives: Accurate identification of environmental sounds plays an important role in maintaining listeners’ awareness of their environment, and is a major concern for cochlear implant patients. Although research indicates that decreased spectral resolution has a negative effect on environmental sound identification, little is known about the processes underlying perceptual adaptation to spectrally-degraded input. The goals of this study were (1) to develop a test of environmental sound perception containing a large variety of easily identifiable and familiar sound sources, represented by multiple exemplars, and (2) to examine whether auditory training improves listeners’ identification of spectrally-degraded environmental sounds. Design: In experiment 1, familiarity ratings and identification accuracy were obtained for 21 normal-hearing subjects for 48 environmental sound sources; there were 4 exemplars of each sound source, for a total of 192 stimuli. A second test was developed using a subset of 40 sound sources (4 exemplars each, for a total of 160 stimuli). In experiment 2, seven normal-hearing subjects (who did not participate in experiment 1) were asked to identify spectrally-degraded environmental sounds processed by a four-channel noise-band vocoder. The second stimulus set developed in experiment 1 (40 sound sources, 4 exemplars each) was used in experiment 2. The subjects were tested in a pretest–posttest design with five training sessions between the pretest and the posttest. The training sounds were selected individually for each subject, and comprised one half of the sound sources that were misidentified in the pretest. Each sound source used in training was represented by two exemplars. During training, subjects received trial and block feedback. For each incorrect response, subjects were allowed to replay the stimulus up to five times after being shown the correct response. Results: In experiment 1, listeners’ average identification accuracy was 95% correct, with 178 of all sounds identified with an accuracy of 80% or more. The average identification accuracy of the 160 sounds selected for experiment 2 was 98% correct, and their average familiarity rating was 6.39 (on a 7-point scale). In experiment 2, the average identification accuracy of spectrally-degraded sounds was 33% correct on the pretest. However, after training, average identification accuracy across all sounds improved to 63% correct on the posttest. The largest improvement (86 percentage points) was obtained for the sound exemplars used during training. The identification accuracy for alternative exemplars of the training sounds (that referenced the same sources) improved by 36 percentage points. Finally, the identification of sound sources not included in the training, but perceived with equal difficulty on the pretest, improved by 18 percentage points. Conclusions: These results demonstrate positive effects of training on the identification of spectrally-degraded environmental sounds and suggest that training effects can generalize to other sound exemplars and sources, although with a reduced magnitude of improvement. The findings also indicate a timeline for initial perceptual adaptation to spectrally-degraded environmental sounds, and provide a preliminary basis for incorporating environmental sounds into auditory rehabilitation programs for cochlear implant patients.

[1]  R. M. Schafer,et al.  The tuning of the world , 1977 .

[2]  On the Lack of Association between Basic Auditory Abilities, Speech Processing, and other Cognitive Skills , 2002 .

[3]  L. Eisenberg Perceptual Capabilities with the Cochlear Implant: Implications for Aural Rehabilitation , 1985, Ear and hearing.

[4]  C A Fowler,et al.  Sound-producing sources as objects of perception: rate normalization and nonspeech perception. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  L. Milgrom The sound of two hands clapping: , 2005, Homeopathy.

[6]  Robert J. Logan,et al.  Perception of acoustic source characteristics: walking sounds. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  Simulations of tonotopically mapped speech processors for cochlear implant electrodes varying in insertion depth. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Speech-perception aids for hearing-impaired people: current status and needed research. Working Group on Communication Aids for the Hearing-Impaired. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

[11]  Brian Gygi,et al.  How to select stimuli for environmental sound research and where to find them , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[12]  M. Dorman,et al.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Francis Kuk,et al.  Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: Audiologic assessment and predictors of performance , 1988, The Laryngoscope.

[14]  M. Posner,et al.  On the genesis of abstract ideas. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  C. Richter Cochlear Implants: Fundamentals and Applications , 2004 .

[16]  H. Damasio,et al.  CT Scan Correlates of Sound Recognition Defect in Aphasia , 1986, Cortex.

[17]  Schindler Ra,et al.  The UCSF/Storz cochlear implant: patient performance. , 1987 .

[18]  L D Rosenblum,et al.  Duplex perception: a comparison of monosyllables and slamming doors. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  Barbara A. Wilson,et al.  A Case of Word Deafness With Preserved Span: Implications for the Structure and Function of Short-Term Memory , 1993, Cortex.

[20]  N. Varney,et al.  Sound recognition in relation to aural language comprehension in aphasic patients. , 1980, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[21]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  The effects of short-term training for spectrally mismatched noise-band speech. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  Dianne J. Allum,et al.  Cochlear Implant Rehabilitation in Children and Adults , 2006 .

[23]  J. Ballas Common factors in the identification of an assortment of brief everyday sounds. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  M. Fabiani,et al.  Naming norms for brief environmental sounds: effects of age and dementia. , 1996, Psychophysiology.

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

[26]  J. Kreiman,et al.  Recognition of environmental sounds in autistic children. , 1988, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

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

[28]  L E Humes,et al.  Factors associated with individual differences in clinical measures of speech recognition among the elderly. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[29]  B. Karrer The Sound of Two Hands Clapping , 1989 .

[30]  P J Blamey,et al.  Speech processing studies using an acoustic model of a multiple-channel cochlear implant. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  B. Repp The sound of two hands clapping: an exploratory study. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  D. Benson,et al.  Non-verbal environmental sound recognition after unilateral hemispheric stroke. , 1994, Brain : a journal of neurology.

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

[34]  S D Stephens,et al.  The use of qualitative questionnaires in patients having and being considered for cochlear implants. , 1997, Clinical otolaryngology and allied sciences.

[35]  William P. Banks,et al.  Accuracy of recognition memory for common sounds , 1973 .

[36]  S. Luzzi,et al.  Modularity of music: evidence from a case of pure amusia , 2000, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

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

[38]  F K Kuk,et al.  Performance of some of the better cochlear-implant patients. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[39]  L D Braida,et al.  Effects of token variability on our ability to distinguish between vowels , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[40]  K. Gfeller,et al.  Effects of training on timbre recognition and appraisal by postlingually deafened cochlear implant recipients. , 2002, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[41]  R. Tyler Advantages of disadvantages expected and reported by cochlear implant patients. , 1994, The American journal of otology.

[42]  P. Peres,et al.  Assessing assessment , 2009 .

[43]  Valeriy Shafiro,et al.  Identification of Environmental Sounds With Varying Spectral Resolution , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[44]  D W Proops,et al.  Outcomes from adult implantation, the first 100 patients , 1999, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[45]  R. Tyler,et al.  Audiological Results with Two Single Channel Cochlear Implants , 1985, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.