Effects of Vowel Context on the Recognition of Initial and Medial Consonants by Cochlear Implant Users

Objective: Scores on consonant-recognition tests are widely used as an index of speech-perception ability in cochlear implant (CI) users. The consonant stimuli in these tests are typically presented in the /&agr;/ vowel context, even though consonants in conversational speech occur in many other contexts. For this reason, it would be useful to know whether vowel context has any systematic effect on consonant recognition in this population. The purpose of the present study was to compare consonant recognition for the /&agr;, i/, and /u/ vowel contexts for consonants presented in both initial (Cv) and medial (vCv) positions. Design: Twenty adult CI users with one of three different implanted devices underwent consonant-confusion testing. Twelve stimulus conditions that differed according to vowel context (/&agr;, i, u/), consonant position (Cv, vCv), and talker gender (male, female) were assessed in each subject. Results: Mean percent-correct consonant-recognition scores were slightly (5 to 8%) higher for the /&agr;/ and /u/ vowel contexts than for the /i/ vowel context for both initial and medial consonants. This general pattern was observed for both male and female talkers, for subjects with better and poorer average consonant-recognition performance, and for subjects using low, medium, and high stimulation rates in their speech processors. In contrast to the mean data, many individual subjects demonstrated large effects of vowel context. For 10 of 20 subjects, consonant-recognition scores varied by 15% or more across vowel contexts in one or more stimulus conditions. Similar to the mean data, these differences generally reflected better performance for the /&agr;/ and /u/ vowel contexts than for the /i/ vowel context. An analysis of consonant features showed that overall performance was best for the voicing feature, followed by the manner and place features, and that the place feature showed the strongest effect of vowel context. Vowel-context effects were strongest for the six consonants /d, j, n, k, m/, and /l/. For three of these consonants (/j, n, k/), the back vowels /&agr;/ and /u/ produced substantially (30 to 35%) higher mean scores than the front vowel /i/. For each of the remaining three consonants, a unique pattern was observed in which a different single vowel produced substantially higher scores than the others. Several additional consonants (/s, g, w, b/, and /đ/) showed strong context effects in either the initial consonant or medial consonant position. Overall, voiceless stop, nasal, and glide-liquid consonants showed the strongest effects of vowel context, whereas the voiceless fricative and voiceless affricate consonants were least affected. Consistent with the feature analysis, a qualitative assessment of phoneme errors for the six key consonants indicated that vowel-context effects stem primarily from changes in the number of place-of-articulation errors made in each context. Conclusions: Vowel context has small but significant effects on consonant-recognition scores for the “average” CI listener, with the back vowels /&agr;/ and /u/ producing better performance than the front vowel /i/. In contrast to the average results, however, the effects of vowel context are sizable in some individual subjects. This suggests that it may be beneficial to assess consonant recognition using two vowels, such as /&agr;/ and /i/, which produce better and poorer performance, respectively. The present results underscore previous findings that poor transmission of spectral speech cues limits consonant-recognition performance in CI users. Spectral cue transmission may be hindered not only by poor spectral resolution in these listeners but also by the brief duration and dynamic nature of consonant place-of-articulation cues.

[1]  M. Demorest,et al.  Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  J Wouters,et al.  Enhancing the speech envelope of continuous interleaved sampling processors for cochlear implants. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Q J Fu,et al.  Effects of Dynamic Range and Amplitude Mapping on Phoneme Recognition in Nucleus‐22 Cochlear Implant Users , 2000, Ear and hearing.

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

[5]  S. Blumstein,et al.  Perceptual integration of the murmur and formant transitions for place of articulation in nasal consonants. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  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.

[7]  Belinda A Henry,et al.  The resolution of complex spectral patterns by cochlear implant and normal-hearing listeners. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  R V Shannon,et al.  Effects of amplitude nonlinearity on phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  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.

[10]  B. Repp Perception of the [m]-[n] distinction in CV syllables. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

[13]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Temporal cues for consonant recognition: training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Electrode ranking of "place pitch" and speech recognition in electrical hearing. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Benjamin Munson,et al.  Patterns of phoneme perception errors by listeners with cochlear implants as a function of overall speech perception ability. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[17]  R V Shannon,et al.  Consonant recordings for speech testing. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Gail S Donaldson,et al.  Effects of Presentation Level on Phoneme and Sentence Recognition in Quiet by Cochlear Implant Listeners , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[19]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  A E Vandali,et al.  Emphasis of short-duration acoustic speech cues for cochlear implant users. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  R. Shannon,et al.  Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  G S Donaldson,et al.  Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.