Minimum spectral contrast needed for vowel identification by normal hearing and cochlear implant listeners.

The minimum spectral contrast needed for vowel identification by normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners was determined in this study. In experiment 1, a spectral modification algorithm was used that manipulated the channel amplitudes extracted from a 6-channel continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) processor to have a 1-10 dB spectral contrast. The spectrally modified amplitudes of eight natural vowels were presented to six Med-EI/CIS-link users for identification. Results showed that subjects required a 4-6 dB contrast to identify vowels with relatively high accuracy. A 4-6 dB contrast was needed independent of the individual subject's dynamic range (range 9-28 dB). Some cochlear implant (CI) users obtained significantly higher scores with vowels enhanced to 6 dB contrast compared to the original, unenhanced vowels, suggesting that spectral contrast enhancement can improve the vowel identification scores for some CI users. To determine whether the minimum spectral contrast needed for vowel identification was dependent on spectral resolution (number of channels available), vowels were processed in experiment 2 through n (n =4, 6, 8, 12) channels, and synthesized as a linear combination of n sine waves with amplitudes manipulated to have a 1-20 dB spectral contrast. For vowels processed through 4 channels, normal-hearing listeners needed a 6 dB contrast, for 6 and 8 channels a 4 dB contrast was needed, consistent with our findings with CI listeners, and for 12 channels a 1 dB contrast was sufficient to achieve high accuracy (>80%). The above-mentioned findings with normal-hearing listeners suggest that when the spectral resolution is poor, a larger spectral contrast is needed for vowel identification. Conversely, when the spectral resolution is fine, a small spectral contrast (1 dB) is sufficient. The high identification score (82%) achieved with 1 dB contrast was significantly higher than any of the scores reported in the literature using synthetic vowels, and this can be attributed to the fact that we used natural vowels which contained duration and spectral cues (e.g., formant movements) present in fluent speech. The outcomes of experiments 1 and 2, taken together, suggest that CI listeners need a larger spectral contrast (4-6 dB) than normal-hearing listeners to achieve high recognition accuracy, not because of the limited dynamic range, but because of the limited spectral resolution.

[1]  P C Loizou,et al.  On the number of channels needed to understand speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  B C Moore,et al.  The identification of vowel-like harmonic complexes: effects of component phase, level, and fundamental frequency. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  D M Green,et al.  Successive versus simultaneous comparison in auditory intensity discrimination. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  M W Skinner,et al.  Effects of Formant Bandwidth on the Identification of Synthetic Vowels by Cochlear Implant Recipients , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[5]  C W Turner,et al.  Discrimination of spectral-peak amplitude by normal and hearing-impaired subjects. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  J. Hillenbrand,et al.  Some effects of duration on vowel recognition. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Mimicking the human ear , 1998, IEEE Signal Process. Mag..

[8]  Q. Summerfield,et al.  Auditory enhancement of changes in spectral amplitude. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  F G Zeng,et al.  Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

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

[11]  P C Loizou,et al.  The Effect of Reduced Dynamic Range on Speech Understanding: Implications for Patients with Cochlear Implants , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[12]  M F Dorman,et al.  Improving Consonant Intelligibility for Ineraid Patients Fit with Continuous Interleaved Sampling (CIS) Processors by Enhancing Contrast Among Channel Outputs , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[13]  M F Dorman,et al.  Minimum spectral contrast for vowel identification by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Development of a speech processor for laboratory experiments with cochlear implant patients , 2000, 2000 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37100).

[15]  M R Leek,et al.  Reduced frequency selectivity and the preservation of spectral contrast in noise. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  P. Mermelstein,et al.  Speech sounds and features , 1975, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[17]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Sensorineural hearing loss and the discrimination of vowel-like stimuli. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  M F Dorman,et al.  The recognition of vowels produced by men, women, boys, and girls by cochlear implant patients using a six-channel CIS processor. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.