The intelligibility of speech with "holes" in the spectrum.

The intelligibility of speech having either a single "hole" in various bands or having two "holes" in disjoint or adjacent bands in the spectrum was assessed with normal-hearing listeners. In experiment 1, the effect of spectral "holes" on vowel and consonant recognition was evaluated using speech processed through six frequency bands, and synthesized as a sum of sine waves. Results showed a modest decrease in vowel and consonant recognition performance when a single hole was introduced in the low- and high-frequency regions of the spectrum, respectively. When two spectral holes were introduced, vowel recognition was sensitive to the location of the holes, while consonant recognition remained constant around 70% correct, even when the middle- and high-frequency speech information was missing. The data from experiment 1 were used in experiment 2 to derive frequency-importance functions based on a least-squares approach. The shapes of the frequency-importance functions were found to be different for consonants and vowels in agreement with the notion that different cues are used by listeners to identify consonants and vowels. For vowels, there was unequal weighting across the various channels, while for consonants the frequency-importance function was relatively flat, suggesting that all bands contributed equally to consonant identification.

[1]  H Müsch,et al.  Using statistical decision theory to predict speech intelligibility. I. Model structure. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  M F Dorman,et al.  Recognition of Monosyllabic Words by Cochlear Implant Patients and by Normal-Hearing Subjects Listening to Words Processed through Cochlear Implant Signal Processing Strategies , 2000, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[3]  A Parkinson,et al.  Channel weights for speech recognition in cochlear implant users. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[5]  Robert V. Shannon,et al.  Holes in Hearing , 2002, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[6]  L M Collins,et al.  Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Richard Lippmann,et al.  Accurate consonant perception without mid-frequency speech energy , 1996, IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process..

[8]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  A frequency importance function for continuous discourse. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  M Dorman,et al.  Consonant recognition as a function of the number of channels of stimulation by patients who use the Symbion cochlear implant. , 1989, Ear and hearing.

[10]  R. M. Warren,et al.  Spectral redundancy: Intelligibility of sentences heard through narrow spectral slits , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[12]  Ira J. Hirsh,et al.  The Intelligibility of Different Speech Materials , 1954 .

[13]  A. Ahumada,et al.  Stimulus Features in Signal Detection , 1971 .

[14]  G. A. Miller,et al.  An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants , 1955 .

[15]  P F Assmann,et al.  Acoustic and linguistic factors in the perception of bandpass-filtered speech. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  L. Braida,et al.  Evaluating the articulation index for auditory-visual input. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  C. Turner,et al.  Frequency-weighting functions for broadband speech as estimated by a correlational method. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  K. D. Kryter.  Validation of the Articulation Index , 1962 .

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

[20]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[21]  The Propagation of Sound in the Atmosphere—Attenuation and Fluctuations , 1946 .

[22]  R Plomp,et al.  Speechreading supplemented with frequency-selective sound-pressure information. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Irwin Pollack,et al.  Effects of High Pass and Low Pass Filtering on the Intelligibility of Speech in Noise , 1948 .

[24]  C. Turner,et al.  Use of a correlational method to estimate a listener's weighting function for speech. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  James A. Bashford,et al.  Novel findings concerning intelligibility of bandpass speech. , 1992 .

[26]  R. Shannon,et al.  Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.