Phoneme recognition and confusions with multichannel cochlear implants: consonants.

The aim of this study was to investigate how postlingually severely or profoundly hearing-impaired adults relearn to recognize consonants after receiving multichannel cochlear implants. Consonant recognition of 19 Finnish-speaking subjects was studied for a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of 24 months using an open-set nonsense-syllable test in a prospective repeated-measure design. Responses were coded for phoneme errors, and proportions of correct responses and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for recognition and confusions. Two years after the switch-on, the mean recognition of consonants was 71% (95% confidence interval = 68-73%). The manner of articulation was easier to classify than the place of articulation, and the consonants [s], [r], [k], [t], [p], [n], and [j] were easier to recognize than [h], [m], [l], and [v]. Adaptation to electrical hearing with a multichannel cochlear implant was successful, but consonants with alveolar, palatal, or velar transitions (high F2) were better recognized than consonants with labial transitions (low F2). The locus of the F2 transitions of the consonants with better recognition was at the frequencies 1.5-2 kHz, whereas the locus of the F2 transitions of the consonants with poorer recognition was at 1.2-1.4 kHz. A tendency to confuse consonants with the closest consonant with higher F2 transition was also noted.

[1]  H J McDermott,et al.  A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  R. Plomp,et al.  Perceptual and physical space of vowel sounds. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  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.

[5]  D D Dirks,et al.  Evaluation of hearing-impaired listeners using a Nonsense-Syllable Test. I. Test reliability. , 1982, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[6]  G M Clark,et al.  Speech recognition for 40 patients receiving multichannel cochlear implants. , 1986, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[7]  O. Aaltonen The effect of relative amplitude levels of F2 and F3 on the categorization of synthetic vowels , 1985 .

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

[9]  A. R. Kaiser,et al.  Perceptual "vowel spaces" of cochlear implant users: implications for the study of auditory adaptation to spectral shift. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[11]  B J Gantz,et al.  Speech perception performance in experienced cochlear-implant patients receiving the SPEAK processing strategy in the Nucleus Spectra-22 cochlear implant. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[12]  William M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1991, Nature.

[13]  Speech sound perception and learning: biologic bases. , 1998, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.

[14]  H J McDermott,et al.  Evaluation of the Nucleus Spectra 22 processor and new speech processing strategy (SPEAK) in postlinguistically deafened adults. , 1995, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[15]  M Pelizzone,et al.  Within-patient longitudinal speech reception measures with continuous interleaved sampling processors for ineraid implanted subjects. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[16]  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.

[17]  J. Lehtonen Aspects of quantity in standard Finnish , 1970 .

[18]  R V Shannon,et al.  Phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users as a function of signal-to-noise ratio and nonlinear amplitude mapping. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  B. Malmberg Manual of phonetics , 1968 .

[20]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  M W Skinner,et al.  Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the multipeak (MPEAK) and spectral peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies II. Consonants. , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[22]  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.

[23]  H. Kiukaanniemi Speech discrimination of patients with high frequency hearing loss. , 1980, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[24]  M W Skinner,et al.  Effect of frequency boundary assignment on speech recognition with the speak speech-coding strategy. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

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

[26]  B J Gantz,et al.  Previous experience as a confounding factor in comparing cochlear-implant processing schemes. , 1986, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[27]  G. Woodworth,et al.  A within-subject comparison of adult patients using the Nucleus F0F1F2 and F0F1F2B3B4B5 speech processing strategies. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[28]  F. Zeng,et al.  Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  R. Tyler Cochlear Implants: Audiological Foundations , 1992 .

[30]  R. Shannon,et al.  Effects of electrode configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[31]  T T Välimaa,et al.  On the construction of a Finnish audiometric sentence test , 2001, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.

[32]  W. Parkinson,et al.  Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. , 1999, The American journal of otology.

[33]  H J McDermott,et al.  Perceptual Performance of Subjects with Cochlear Implants Using the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor (SMSP) and the Mini Speech Processor (MSP) , 1993, Ear and hearing.

[34]  A. Boothroyd,et al.  Effects of spectral smearing on phoneme and word recognition. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  Susan B. Waltzman,et al.  A Prospective, Randomized Study of Cochlear Implants , 1993 .

[36]  L Whitford,et al.  Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. , 1996, Audiology & neuro-otology.

[37]  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.

[38]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Statistics with confidence: Confidence intervals and statistical guidelines . , 1990 .

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

[41]  Jean‐Pierre A. Radley,et al.  Acoustic Properties of Stop Consonants , 1957 .

[42]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

[43]  M. Dorman,et al.  Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  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.

[45]  R. Shannon,et al.  Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  W Baumgartner,et al.  Evaluation of performance with the COMBI40 cochlear implant in adults: a multicentric clinical study. , 1997, ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties.

[47]  T. Määttä,et al.  Speech discrimination and hearing loss sloping to high frequencies. A phonetic approach. , 1980, Scandinavian audiology.

[49]  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.

[50]  M. Dorman,et al.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[51]  M. Dorman,et al.  The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[52]  L H Mens,et al.  Predictors of cochlear implant performance. , 1999, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[53]  E. Zwicker,et al.  Subdivision of the audible frequency range into critical bands , 1961 .

[54]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Optimized Speech Understanding with the Continuous Interleaved Sampling Speech Coding Strategy in Patients with Cochlear Implants: Effect of Variations in Stimulation Rate and Number of Channels , 2000, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[55]  W. Parkinson,et al.  Results of speech processor upgrade in a population of Veterans Affairs cochlear implant recipients. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[56]  B. Lindblom,et al.  On the Notion "Possible Speech Sound , 1990 .

[57]  A van Wieringen,et al.  Natural vowel and consonant recognition by Laura cochlear implantees. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[58]  W. Baumgartner,et al.  Speech discrimination scores of postlingually deaf adults implanted with the Combi 40 cochlear implant. , 1998, Acta oto-laryngologica.