Use of vocalic information in the identification of /s/ and /sh/ by children with cochlear implants.

Objective When a syllable such as “sea” or “she” is spoken, listeners with normal hearing extract evidence of the fricative consonant from both the fricative noise and the following vocalic segment. If the fricative noise is made ambiguous, listeners may still perceive “s” or “sh” categorically, depending on information in the vocalic segment. Do children whose auditory experience comes from electrical stimulation also display this effect, in which a subsequent segment of speech disambiguates an earlier segment? Design Unambiguous vowels were appended to ambiguous fricative noises to form tokens of the words “she,” “sea,” “shoe,” and “Sue.” A four-choice identification test was undertaken by children with normal hearing (N = 29), prelingually deaf children with the Nucleus Spectra-22 implant system using the SPEAK coding strategy (N = 13), postlingually deafened adults with the same implant system (N = 26), and adults with normal hearing (N = 10). The last group undertook the test before and after the stimuli were processed to simulate the transformations introduced by the SPEAK coding strategy. Results All four groups made use of vocalic information. Simulated processing reduced the use made by normal-hearing adults. Implanted subjects made less use than the other groups, with no significant difference between implanted children and implanted adults. The highest levels of use by implanted subjects were within one standard deviation of the mean level displayed when normal-hearing adults listened to processed stimuli. Analyses showed that the SPEAK strategy distorted formant contours in the vocalic segments of the stimuli in ways that are compatible with the errors of identification made by implanted subjects. Conclusions Some children with implants can extract information from a following vowel to disambiguate a preceding fricative noise. The upper limit on this ability may be set by distortions introduced by the implant processor, rather than by the auditory experience of the child.

[1]  S Nittrouer,et al.  Discriminability and perceptual weighting of some acoustic cues to speech perception by 3-year-olds. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[2]  R. Patterson,et al.  Time-domain modeling of peripheral auditory processing: a modular architecture and a software platform. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  M. Skinner,et al.  Performance of postlinguistically deaf adults with the Wearable Speech Processor (WSP III) and Mini Speech Processor (MSP) of the Nucleus Multi-Electrode Cochlear Implant. , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[4]  M Studdert-Kennedy,et al.  The role of coarticulatory effects in the perception of fricatives by children and adults. , 1987, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[5]  D. Howard,et al.  Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set of words, including verbs and function words , 2001, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[6]  Fant Cg Descriptive analysis of the acoustic aspects of speech. , 1962 .

[7]  A. Faulkner,et al.  Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  P Seligman,et al.  Architecture of the Spectra 22 speech processor. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[9]  A E Carney,et al.  Effect of relative amplitude and formant transitions on perception of place of articulation by adult listeners with cochlear implants. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[10]  F. R. Miller,et al.  Managing the aspirating patient. , 1994, American journal of otolaryngology.

[11]  S Nittrouer,et al.  Children learn separate aspects of speech production at different rates: evidence from spectral moments. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  John Bamford,et al.  Speech-hearing tests and the spoken language of hearing-impaired children , 1979 .

[13]  C A Fowler,et al.  Perceptual parsing of acoustic consequences of velum lowering from information for vowels , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  S Nittrouer,et al.  Developmental weighting shifts for noise components of fricative-vowel syllables. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Alvin M. Liberman,et al.  The Grammars of Speech and Language. , 1970 .

[16]  A Boothroyd,et al.  Speech recognition with reduced spectral cues as a function of age. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  T. Nikolopoulos,et al.  Determinants of speech perception in children after cochlear implantation , 2000, The Lancet.

[18]  V. Mann,et al.  Influence of vocalic context on perception of the [∫]-[s] distinction , 1978 .

[19]  R. N. Ohde,et al.  Effect of relative amplitude of frication on perception of place of articulation. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  D B Pisoni,et al.  Cognitive Factors and Cochlear Implants: Some Thoughts on Perception, Learning, and Memory in Speech Perception , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[21]  P M Seligman,et al.  Vowel and consonant recognition of cochlear implant patients using formant-estimating speech processors. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  Kenneth N. Stevens,et al.  On the quantal nature of speech , 1972 .

[23]  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.

[24]  A M Liberman,et al.  Perception of the speech code. , 1967, Psychological review.

[25]  S. Waltzman,et al.  Long-term results of early cochlear implantation in congenitally and prelingually deafened children. , 1994, The American journal of otology.

[26]  B J Gantz,et al.  Pre-lingually deaf children can perform as well as post-lingually deaf adults using cochlear implants , 2000, Cochlear implants international.

[27]  M F Dorman,et al.  Acoustic cues for consonant identification by patients who use the Ineraid cochlear implant. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  S. Nittrouer Age-related differences in perceptual effects of formant transitions within syllables and across syllable boundaries , 1992 .

[29]  H. Fujisaka,et al.  Analysis, recognition and perception of voiceless fricative consonants in Japanese , 1976, ICASSP.

[30]  D. Whalen Effects of vocalic formant transitions and vowel quality on the English [s]-[ŝ] boundary. , 1981, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  K. Stevens,et al.  On the Properties of Voiceless Fricative Consonants , 1961 .

[32]  A. Liberman,et al.  On the relation of speech to language , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[33]  A. Summerfield,et al.  Functionally equivalent ages and hearing levels of children with cochlear implants measured with pre-recorded stimuli , 2001, British Journal of Audiology.

[34]  B J Gantz,et al.  Cochlear implant use by prelingually deafened children: the influences of age at implant and length of device use. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[35]  M F Dorman,et al.  The Identification of Speech in Noise by Cochlear Implant Patients and Normal‐Hearing Listeners Using 6‐Channel Signal Processors , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[36]  G. Woodworth,et al.  Results of multichannel cochlear implants in congenital and acquired prelingual deafness in children: five-year follow-up. , 1994, The American journal of otology.

[37]  M. Svirsky,et al.  Speech Perception by Children with the Clarion (CIS) or Nucleus 22 (SPEAK) Cochlear Implant or Hearing Aids , 2000, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[38]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Word Recognition by Children Listening to Speech Processed into a Small Number of Channels: Data from Normal-Hearing Children and Children with Cochlear Implants , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[39]  R. Diehl,et al.  On the Objects of Speech Perception , 1989 .

[40]  S. Staller,et al.  Speech perception abilities of adult and pediatric Nucleus implant recipients using the Spectral Peak (SPEAK) coding strategy. , 1997, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[41]  C. Fant,et al.  Descriptive analysis of the acoustic aspects of speech. , 1962, Logos.

[42]  R T Miyamoto,et al.  Improvements in speech perception by children with profound prelingual hearing loss: effects of device, communication mode, and chronological age. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[43]  A Boothroyd,et al.  Spectral distribution of /s/ and the frequency response of hearing aids. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

[44]  R C Dowell,et al.  Perceptual Abilities of Children with the Nucleus 22‐Channel Cochlear Implant , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[45]  R. Ruben,et al.  Necessity versus sufficiency: the role of input in language acquisition. , 1999, International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology.