Spectral and temporal cues to pitch in noise-excited vocoder simulations of continuous-interleaved-sampling cochlear implants.

Four-band and single-band noise-excited vocoders were used in acoustic simulations to investigate spectral and temporal cues to melodic pitch in the output of a cochlear implant speech processor. Noise carriers were modulated by amplitude envelopes extracted by half-wave rectification and low-pass filtering at 32 or 400 Hz. The four-band, but not the single-band processors, may preserve spectral correlates of fundamental frequency (F0). Envelope smoothing at 400 Hz preserves temporal correlates of F0, which are eliminated with 32-Hz smoothing. Inputs to the processors were sawtooth frequency glides, in which spectral variation is completely determined by F0, or synthetic diphthongal vowel glides, whose spectral shape is dominated by varying formant resonances. Normal listeners labeled the direction of pitch movement of the processed stimuli. For processed sawtooth waves, purely temporal cues led to decreasing performance with increasing F0. With purely spectral cues, performance was above chance despite the limited spectral resolution of the processors. For processed diphthongs, performance with purely spectral cues was at chance, showing that spectral envelope changes due to formant movement obscured spectral cues to F0. Performance with temporal cues was poorer for diphthongs than for sawtooths, with very limited discrimination at higher F0. These data suggest that, for speech signals through a typical cochlear implant processor, spectral cues to pitch are likely to have limited utility, while temporal envelope cues may be useful only at low F0.

[1]  A Fourcin,et al.  Speech pattern element stimulation in electrical hearing. , 1984, Archives of otolaryngology.

[2]  B S Wilson,et al.  The future of cochlear implants. , 1997, British journal of audiology.

[3]  G M Clark,et al.  The perception of temporal modulations by cochlear implant patients. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  I. Pollack Periodicity pitch for interrupted white noise--fact or artifact? , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  F. Zeng,et al.  Identification of temporal envelope cues in Chinese tone recognition , 2000 .

[6]  Sheldon B. Michaels,et al.  Some Aspects of Fundamental Frequency and Envelope Amplitude as Related to the Emotional Content of Speech , 1962 .

[7]  Robert V. Shannon,et al.  Importance of tonal envelope cues in Chinese speech recognition , 1995 .

[8]  S. Nooteboom,et al.  THE PROSODY OF SPEECH: MELODY AND RHYTHM , 2001 .

[9]  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.

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

[11]  H J McDermott,et al.  Musical pitch perception with electrical stimulation of the cochlea. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  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.

[13]  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.

[14]  Hugh J. McDermott,et al.  Place and temporal cues in pitch perception: are they truly independent? , 2000 .

[15]  L Geurts,et al.  Coding of the fundamental frequency in continuous interleaved sampling processors for cochlear implants. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  H J McDermott,et al.  Pitch percepts associated with amplitude-modulated current pulse trains in cochlear implantees. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[18]  Catherine Semal,et al.  Pitch versus Brightness of Timbre: Detecting Combined Shifts in Fundamental and Formant Frequency , 1993 .

[19]  P. Jusczyk The discovery of spoken language , 1997 .

[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]  C Highnam,et al.  Linguistic stress judgments of language learning disabled students. , 1987, Journal of communication disorders.

[22]  A Faulkner,et al.  Effects of the salience of pitch and periodicity information on the intelligibility of four-channel vocoded speech: implications for cochlear implants. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  T E Hanna,et al.  Discrimination and identification of modulation rate using a noise carrier. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Yi Xu,et al.  Information for Mandarin tones in the amplitude contour and in brief segments , 1990 .

[25]  E. Abberton,et al.  Intonation and Speaker Identification , 1978, Language and speech.

[26]  A. Fernald,et al.  A cross-language study of prosodic modifications in mothers' and fathers' speech to preverbal infants , 1989, Journal of Child Language.

[27]  F. Zeng,et al.  Importance of tonal envelope cues in Chinese speech recognition. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  D H Whalen,et al.  Information for Mandarin Tones in the Amplitude Contour and in Brief Segments , 1990, Phonetica.

[29]  M R Leek,et al.  Modulation rate detection and discrimination by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  G. Clark,et al.  Psychophysical studies evaluating the feasibility of a speech processing strategy for a multiple-channel cochlear implant. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[32]  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.

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

[34]  E. M. Burns,et al.  Played-again SAM: Further observations on the pitch of amplitude-modulated noise , 1981 .