Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening.

Cochlear implant users report difficulty understanding speech in both noisy and reverberant environments. Electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) is known to improve speech intelligibility in noise. However, little is known about the potential benefits of EAS in reverberation, or about how such benefits relate to those observed in noise. The present study used EAS simulations to examine these questions. Sentences were convolved with impulse responses from a model of a room whose estimated reverberation times were varied from 0 to 1 sec. These reverberated stimuli were then vocoded to simulate electric stimulation, or presented as a combination of vocoder plus low-pass filtered speech to simulate EAS. Monaural sentence recognition scores were measured in two conditions: reverberated speech and speech in a reverberated noise. The long-term spectrum and amplitude modulations of the noise were equated to the reverberant energy, allowing a comparison of the effects of the interferer (speech vs noise). Results indicate that, at least in simulation, (1) EAS provides significant benefit in reverberation; (2) the benefits of EAS in reverberation may be underestimated by those in a comparable noise; and (3) the EAS benefit in reverberation likely arises from partially preserved cues in this background accessible via the low-frequency acoustic component.

[1]  IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measurements , 1969, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics.

[2]  David M. Landsberger,et al.  Virtual channel discrimination is improved by current focusing in cochlear implant recipients , 2009, Hearing Research.

[3]  Ning Zhou,et al.  Lexical Tone Perception with HiResolution and HiResolution 120 Sound-Processing Strategies in Pediatric Mandarin-Speaking Cochlear Implant Users , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[4]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Voice gender identification by cochlear implant users: the role of spectral and temporal resolution. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  R. H. Bolt,et al.  Theory of Speech masking by reverberation , 1949 .

[6]  T. Houtgast,et al.  The Modulation Transfer Function in Room Acoustics as a Predictor of Speech Intelligibility , 1973 .

[7]  Chaz Yee Toh,et al.  Effects of reverberation on perceptual segregation of competing voices. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  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.

[9]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Better place-coding of the fundamental frequency in cochlear implants. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  R W Hukin,et al.  Effects of reverberation on spatial, prosodic, and vocal-tract size cues to selective attention. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Sharon A McKarns,et al.  The Benefits of Combining Acoustic and Electric Stimulation for the Recognition of Speech, Voice and Melodies , 2007, Audiology and Neurotology.

[13]  Mark Downing,et al.  Current Steering Creates Additional Pitch Percepts in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2007, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[14]  N. Popplewell,et al.  Combined effects of early reflections and background noise on speech intelligibility , 1989 .

[15]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Recipients: Comparison of Standard HiRes and HiRes 120 Sound Processing , 2009, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[16]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Combining acoustic and electrical speech processing: Iowa/Nucleus hybrid implant , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[17]  B C Moore,et al.  Effects of carrier frequency, modulation rate, and modulation waveform on the detection of modulation and the discrimination of modulation type (amplitude modulation versus frequency modulation). , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Preservation of Hearing in Cochlear Implant Surgery: Advantages of Combined Electrical and Acoustical Speech Processing , 2005, The Laryngoscope.

[19]  Gail S Donaldson,et al.  BKB-SIN and ANL Predict Perceived Communication Ability in Cochlear Implant Users , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[20]  S. Gelfand,et al.  Effects of small room reverberation upon the recognition of some consonant features , 1979 .

[21]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Contribution of frequency modulation to speech recognition in noise. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  Michael F Dorman,et al.  Information From the Voice Fundamental Frequency (F0) Region Accounts for the Majority of the Benefit When Acoustic Stimulation Is Added to Electric Stimulation , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[23]  R. Hartmann,et al.  Electric-Acoustic Stimulation of the Auditory System , 1999, ORL.

[24]  Kostas Kokkinakis,et al.  The impact of reverberant self-masking and overlap-masking effects on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners (L). , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  B. Moore,et al.  Benefit of high-rate envelope cues in vocoder processing: effect of number of channels and spectral region. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Michael K. Qin,et al.  Effects of Envelope-Vocoder Processing on F0 Discrimination and Concurrent-Vowel Identification , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[27]  B. Moore,et al.  Suggested formulae for calculating auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation patterns. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  Lucas H M Mens,et al.  Current Steering and Current Focusing in Cochlear Implants: Comparison of Monopolar, Tripolar, and Virtual Channel Electrode Configurations , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[29]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Coding of Sounds in the Auditory System and Its Relevance to Signal Processing and Coding in Cochlear Implants , 2003, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[30]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Nucleus® 24 Advanced Encoder Conversion Study: Performance versus Preference , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[31]  Markus Brunner,et al.  Speech and music perception with the new fine structure speech coding strategy: preliminary results , 2007, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[32]  Christian Lorenzi,et al.  Perception of temporal fine-structure cues in speech with minimal envelope cues for listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[33]  C von Ilberg,et al.  Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. New technology for severe hearing loss. , 1999, ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties.

[34]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Effects of moderate cochlear hearing loss on the ability to benefit from temporal fine structure information in speech. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  Dominik Riss,et al.  1-year results using the Opus speech processor with the fine structure speech coding strategy , 2009, Acta oto-laryngologica.

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

[37]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  Robert V. Shannon,et al.  Effect of Stimulation Rate on Cochlear Implant Users’ Phoneme, Word and Sentence Recognition in Quiet and in Noise , 2010, Audiology and Neurotology.

[39]  Christopher A Brown,et al.  Low-frequency speech cues and simulated electric-acoustic hearing. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  Michael K. Qin,et al.  Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  J. P. A. Lochner,et al.  The intelligibility of speech under reverberant conditions , 1961 .

[42]  Sid P. Bacon,et al.  Fundamental frequency and speech intelligibility in background noise , 2010, Hearing Research.

[43]  Emily Buss,et al.  Temporal Fine-Structure Cues to Speech and Pure Tone Modulation in Observers with Sensorineural Hearing Loss , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[44]  Colleen Psarros,et al.  Speech Recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS Speech Coding Strategies in Newly Implanted Adults , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[45]  H. Traunmüller,et al.  Acoustic effects of variation in vocal effort by men, women, and children. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  Monita Chatterjee,et al.  Processing F0 with cochlear implants: Modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition , 2008, Hearing Research.

[47]  A K Nábĕlek,et al.  Influence of the precedence effect on word identification by normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[48]  B. Moore The Role of Temporal Fine Structure Processing in Pitch Perception, Masking, and Speech Perception for Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired People , 2008, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[49]  J.P.A. Lochner,et al.  The influence of reflections on auditorium acoustics , 1964 .

[50]  O Ghitza,et al.  On the upper cutoff frequency of the auditory critical-band envelope detectors in the context of speech perception. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[51]  Blake S. Wilson,et al.  Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future , 2008, Hearing Research.

[52]  René H. Gifford,et al.  Evidence for the Expansion of Adult Cochlear Implant Candidacy , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[53]  Jay T. Rubinstein,et al.  Discrimination of Schroeder-Phase Harmonic Complexes by Normal-Hearing and Cochlear-Implant Listeners , 2008, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[54]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Effects of reverberation and masking on speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[55]  M. Dorman,et al.  Performance of Patients Using Different Cochlear Implant Systems: Effects of Input Dynamic Range , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[56]  Jayaganesh Swaminathan,et al.  Quantifying Envelope and Fine-Structure Coding in Auditory Nerve Responses to Chimaeric Speech , 2009, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[57]  Sid P. Bacon,et al.  Achieving Electric-Acoustic Benefit with a Modulated Tone , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[58]  Brian C. J. Moore The role of temporal fine structure in normal and impaired hearing , 2007 .

[59]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: Effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[60]  Michael F Dorman,et al.  Combined electric and contralateral acoustic hearing: word and sentence recognition with bimodal hearing. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[61]  H J McDermott,et al.  Pitch ranking with nonsimultaneous dual-electrode electrical stimulation of the cochlea. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[62]  T. Houtgast,et al.  Predicting speech intelligibility in rooms from the modulation transfer function, I. General room acoustics , 1980 .

[63]  J. T Rubinstein,et al.  Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation , 1999, Hearing Research.

[64]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[65]  Christiane Séguin,et al.  Users’ experience of a cochlear implant combined with a hearing aid , 2009, International journal of audiology.

[66]  Christopher A Brown,et al.  On the mechanisms involved in the recovery of envelope information from temporal fine structure. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[67]  Christian Lorenzi,et al.  Role of spectral and temporal cues in restoring missing speech information. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[68]  Torsten Dau,et al.  Binaural pitch perception in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners , 2007, Hearing Research.

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

[70]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Moderate cochlear hearing loss leads to a reduced ability to use temporal fine structure information. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[71]  Patrick N Plyler,et al.  The acceptance of background noise in adult cochlear implant users. , 2008, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[72]  S. Drgas,et al.  Perception of speech in reverberant conditions using AM–FM cochlear implant simulation , 2010, Hearing Research.

[73]  Zachary M. Smith,et al.  Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception , 2002, Nature.