Effects of Vocoder Processing on Speech Perception in Reverberant Classrooms

Channel vocoders have been widely used as acoustic models for current vocoder-centric cochlear implant (CI) signal processing strategies. Previous studies found that 4- to 8-channel vocoded speech in normal hearing (NH) subjects can derive comparable recognition scores to CI subjects who may have 8 to 22 frequency channels. The reasons for this overestimation might include 1) classic vocoders preserve natural intensity dynamic range within the envelopes rather than the much narrower range in CIs and 2) classic vocoders cannot simulate the effect of electric pulse rate. This study presents a novel vocoder based on a direct electric-pulse to acoustic-pulse mapping (i.e., electrodogram to spectrogram) to deal with the overestimation problem. The effects of the proposed vocoders with 22 and 16 channels on speech intelligibility in two real-measured classrooms were tested in NH listeners. Results showed that the proposed vocoders are more sensitive to changes of reverberant environment, like the previously reported actual CI results, than the classic ones, which implies that the new vocoding method could be a better alternative for acoustic modelling of current CI processing.

[1]  Graeme M. Clark,et al.  Evaluation of a Two-Formant Speech-Processing Strategy for a Multichannel Cochlear Prosthesis , 1987 .

[2]  Alan Kan,et al.  Effect of mismatched place-of-stimulation on binaural fusion and lateralization in bilateral cochlear-implant users. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  P M Seligman,et al.  Speech processing for a multiple-electrode cochlear implant hearing prosthesis. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  K. Plant,et al.  Speech Perception as a Function of Electrical Stimulation Rate: Using the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[5]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Binaural masking level differences in actual and simulated bilateral cochlear implant listeners. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[7]  Andreas Spanias,et al.  Speech coding: a tutorial review , 1994, Proc. IEEE.

[8]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear Implants: System Design, Integration, and Evaluation , 2008, IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  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.

[10]  Seyed Omid Sadjadi,et al.  Simultaneous suppression of noise and reverberation in cochlear implants using a ratio masking strategy. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[12]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Noise Susceptibility of Cochlear Implant Users: The Role of Spectral Resolution and Smearing , 2005, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[13]  D. D. Greenwood A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  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.

[15]  Bo-sun Xie,et al.  Head-Related Transfer Function and Virtual Auditory Display: E-Book , 2013 .

[16]  Manfred R. Schroeder,et al.  Vocoders: Analysis and synthesis of speech , 1966 .

[17]  Philipos C Loizou,et al.  Speech processing in vocoder-centric cochlear implants. , 2006, Advances in oto-rhino-laryngology.

[18]  Yi Hu,et al.  Evaluation of a spectral subtraction strategy to suppress reverberant energy in cochlear implant devices. , 2015, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Sha Liu,et al.  Development of the Mandarin Hearing in Noise Test (MHINT) , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[20]  B. Gold,et al.  The channel vocoder , 1967 .

[21]  Alan Kan,et al.  Effect of mismatched place-of-stimulation on the salience of binaural cues in conditions that simulate bilateral cochlear-implant listening. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.