Contribution of formant frequency information to vowel perception in steady-state noise by cochlear implant users.

Cochlear implant (CI) recipients have difficulty understanding speech in noise even at moderate signal-to-noise ratios. Knowing the mechanisms they use to understand speech in noise may facilitate the search for better speech processing algorithms. In the present study, a computational model is used to assess whether CI users' vowel identification in noise can be explained by formant frequency cues (F1 and F2). Vowel identification was tested with 12 unilateral CI users in quiet and in noise. Formant cues were measured from vowels in each condition, specific to each subject's speech processor. Noise distorted the location of vowels in the F2 vs F1 plane in comparison to quiet. The best fit model to subjects' data in quiet produced model predictions in noise that were within 8% of actual scores on average. Predictions in noise were much better when assuming that subjects used a priori knowledge regarding how formant information is degraded in noise (experiment 1). However, the model's best fit to subjects' confusion matrices in noise was worse than in quiet, suggesting that CI users utilize formant cues to identify vowels in noise, but to a different extent than how they identify vowels in quiet (experiment 2).

[1]  Mario A. Svirsky The multidimensional phoneme identification (MPI) model: A new quantitative framework to explain the perception of speech sounds by cochlear implant users , 2002 .

[2]  M. Svirsky,et al.  The effect of perimodiolar placement on speech perception and frequency discrimination by cochlear implant users , 2007, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[3]  Zachary M. Smith,et al.  Examining the Electro-Neural Interface of Cochlear Implant Users Using Psychophysics, CT Scans, and Speech Understanding , 2014, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[4]  D. Kewley-Port,et al.  Vowel intelligibility in clear and conversational speech for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  P. Loizou,et al.  The influence of noise on vowel and consonant cues. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  M. Ruckenstein,et al.  Speech Perception Performance as a Function of Age at Implantation Among Postlingually Deaf Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2014, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[7]  Naomi H. Feldman,et al.  The influence of categories on perception: explaining the perceptual magnet effect as optimal statistical inference. , 2009, Psychological review.

[8]  Catherine L. Rogers,et al.  Vowel identification by cochlear implant users: Contributions of duration cues and dynamic spectral cues. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Wouter A. Dreschler,et al.  ICRA Noises: Artificial Noise Signals with Speech-like Spectral and Temporal Properties for Hearing Instrument Assessment: Ruidos ICRA: Señates de ruido artificial con espectro similar al habla y propiedades temporales para pruebas de instrumentos auditivos , 2001 .

[10]  Mario A Svirsky,et al.  Bilateral cochlear implants with large asymmetries in electrode insertion depth: implications for the study of auditory plasticity , 2015, Acta oto-laryngologica.

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

[12]  S. Zahorian,et al.  Spectral-shape features versus formants as acoustic correlates for vowels. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[14]  M. Sachs,et al.  Effect of electrical stimulation of the crossed olivocochlear bundle on auditory nerve response to tones in noise. , 1987, Journal of neurophysiology.

[15]  René H Gifford,et al.  Speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in a realistic background noise: effectiveness of preprocessing strategies and external options for improving speech recognition in noise. , 2010, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[16]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Probing the Electrode-Neuron Interface With Focused Cochlear Implant Stimulation , 2010, Trends in amplification.

[17]  Diane Kewley-Port,et al.  Formant discrimination in noise for isolated vowels. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Stefan J. Mauger,et al.  Clinical evaluation of the Nucleus® 6 cochlear implant system: Performance improvements with SmartSound iQ , 2014, International journal of audiology.

[19]  L. Chistovich,et al.  The ‘center of gravity’ effect in vowel spectra and critical distance between the formants: Psychoacoustical study of the perception of vowel-like stimuli , 1979, Hearing Research.

[20]  M. Sachs,et al.  Representation of steady-state vowels in the temporal aspects of the discharge patterns of populations of auditory-nerve fibers. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Control Methods Used in a Study of the Vowels , 1951 .

[22]  M A Svirsky,et al.  Mathematical modeling of vowel perception by users of analog multichannel cochlear implants: temporal and channel-amplitude cues. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  The neural encoding of formant frequencies contributing to vowel identification in normal-hearing listeners. , 2016, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Terrance M. Nearey,et al.  Modeling the role of inherent spectral change in vowel identification , 1986 .

[25]  R. Hurtig,et al.  The use of static and dynamic vowel cues by multichannel cochlear implant users. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Paul Iverson,et al.  Vowel recognition via cochlear implants and noise vocoders: effects of formant movement and duration. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  J. Jenkins,et al.  Identification of vowels in “vowelless” syllables , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  Andreas Büchner,et al.  Speech reception threshold benefits in cochlear implant users with an adaptive beamformer in real life situations , 2015, Cochlear implants international.

[29]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  A Model of Incomplete Adaptation to a Severely Shifted Frequency-to-Electrode Mapping by Cochlear Implant Users , 2010, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[30]  William J Idsardi,et al.  The use of acoustic cues for phonetic identification: effects of spectral degradation and electric hearing. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  Johan J Hanekom,et al.  The relative importance of spectral cues for vowel recognition in severe noise. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  Mario A Svirsky,et al.  A mathematical model of medial consonant identification by cochlear implant users. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  A. R. Kaiser,et al.  A mathematical model of vowel identification by users of cochlear implants. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  H. S. Gopal,et al.  A perceptual model of vowel recognition based on the auditory representation of American English vowels. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.