Simulations of cochlear-implant speech perception in modulated and unmodulated noise.

Experiment 1 replicated the finding that normal-hearing listeners identify speech better in modulated than in unmodulated noise. This modulated-unmodulated difference ("MUD") has been previously shown to be reduced or absent for cochlear-implant listeners and for normal-hearing listeners presented with noise-vocoded speech. Experiments 2-3 presented normal-hearing listeners with noise-vocoded speech in unmodulated or 16-Hz-square-wave modulated noise, and investigated whether the introduction of simple binaural differences between target and masker could restore the masking release. Stimuli were presented over headphones. When the target and masker were presented to one ear, adding a copy of the masker to the other ear ("diotic configuration") aided performance but did so to a similar degree for modulated and unmodulated maskers, thereby failing to improve the modulation masking release. Presenting an uncorrelated noise to the opposite ear ("dichotic configuration") had no effect, either for modulated or unmodulated maskers, consistent with the improved performance in the diotic configuration being due to interaural decorrelation processing. For noise-vocoded speech, the provision of simple spatial differences did not allow listeners to take greater advantage of the dips present in a modulated masker.

[1]  Antje Ihlefeld,et al.  Disentangling the effects of spatial cues on selection and formation of auditory objects. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Barbara G. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Bottom-up and top-down influences on spatial unmasking , 2005 .

[3]  Michael K. Qin,et al.  Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  B. Moore,et al.  Thresholds for hearing mistuned partials as separate tones in harmonic complexes. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  M. Ericson,et al.  Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Yi Hu,et al.  Speech recognition by bilateral cochlear implant users in a cocktail-party setting. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  S van de Par,et al.  A new approach to comparing binaural masking level differences at low and high frequencies. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  R L Freyman,et al.  The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  B J Kwon,et al.  Consonant identification under maskers with sinusoidal modulation: masking release or modulation interference? , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Blake S Wilson,et al.  Three-Month Results with Bilateral Cochlear Implants , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[11]  Antje Ihlefeld,et al.  Spatial release from energetic and informational masking in a divided speech identification task. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Role of binaural hearing in speech intelligibility and spatial release from masking using vocoded speech. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Effects of reverberation and masking on speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Masking release for low- and high-pass-filtered speech in the presence of noise and single-talker interference. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  D S Brungart,et al.  Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: Effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Effects of Temporal Fine Structure on the Lateralization of Speech and on Speech Understanding in Noise , 2007, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[18]  Geoffrey Stewart Morrison,et al.  Analysis of categorical response data: use logistic regression rather than endpoint-difference scores or discriminant analysis. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  B. Moore,et al.  Relative dominance of individual partials in determining the pitch of complex tones , 1985 .

[20]  C. Darwin,et al.  The integration of nonsimultaneous frequency components into a single virtual pitch. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Robert A Lutfi,et al.  Psychometric functions for informational masking. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  W. Hartmann,et al.  The role of reverberation in release from masking due to spatial separation of sources for speech identification , 2005 .

[23]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  L. Rabiner,et al.  Binaural release from masking for speech and gain in intelligibility. , 1967, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Noise Susceptibility of Cochlear Implant Users: The Role of Spectral Resolution and Smearing , 2005, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[27]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  THE PERCEPTION OF SPEECH IN FLUCTUATING NOISE , 1993 .

[28]  Mary Florentine,et al.  Comodulation masking release for three types of modulator as a function of modulation rate , 1989, Hearing Research.

[29]  Charles Darwin,et al.  Spatial Hearing and Perceiving Sources , 2008 .

[30]  R. Tyler,et al.  Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Binaural Cochlear Implants Placed during the Same Operation , 2002, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[32]  G. Kidd,et al.  The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Frederick J. Gallun,et al.  The advantage of knowing where to listen. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  Dan Gnansia,et al.  Effect of masker modulation depth on speech masking release , 2008, Hearing Research.

[35]  S Buus,et al.  Release from masking caused by envelope fluctuations. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  John F Culling,et al.  The spatial unmasking of speech: evidence for within-channel processing of interaural time delay. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  W. T. Nelson,et al.  A speech corpus for multitalker communications research. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  Frédéric Apoux,et al.  Selectivity of modulation interference for consonant identification in normal-hearing listeners. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  S. Rosen,et al.  Uncomodulated glimpsing in "checkerboard" noise. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  Blake S Wilson,et al.  Multicenter U.S. Bilateral MED-EL Cochlear Implantation Study: Speech Perception over the First Year of Use , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[41]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The Intelligibility of Interrupted Speech , 1948 .

[42]  P. Nopp,et al.  Head Shadow, Squelch, and Summation Effects in Bilateral Users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ Cochlear Implant , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[43]  R. Fay,et al.  Speech Processing in the Auditory System , 2010, Springer Handbook of Auditory Research.

[44]  Robert P. Carlyon,et al.  Effects of Harmonicity and Regularity on the Perception of Sound Sources , 2008 .

[45]  Joshua G. W. Bernstein,et al.  Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  Michelle R. Molis,et al.  Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: effects of hearing loss and presentation level. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[47]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  The effects of spatial separation in distance on the informational and energetic masking of a nearby speech signal. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[48]  J. Müller,et al.  Speech Understanding in Quiet and Noise in Bilateral Users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ Cochlear Implant System , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[49]  S. Stouffer Adjustment during army life , 1977 .

[50]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[51]  Christopher J. Long,et al.  Binaural Unmasking with Bilateral Cochlear Implants , 2006, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[52]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Speech perception in gated noise: the effects of temporal resolution. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[53]  Mathieu Lavandier,et al.  Speech segregation in rooms: monaural, binaural, and interacting effects of reverberation on target and interferer. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[54]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[55]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Spatial release from masking with noise-vocoded speech. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[56]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[57]  Peter F. Assmann,et al.  The Perception of Speech Under Adverse Conditions , 2004 .

[58]  John F Culling,et al.  The spatial unmasking of speech: evidence for better-ear listening. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.