Low-frequency speech cues and simulated electric-acoustic hearing.

The addition of low-frequency acoustic information to real or simulated electric stimulation (so-called electric-acoustic stimulation or EAS) often results in large improvements in intelligibility, particularly in competing backgrounds. This may reflect the availability of fundamental frequency (F0) information in the acoustic region. The contributions of F0 and the amplitude envelope (as well as voicing) of speech to simulated EAS was examined by replacing the low-frequency speech with a tone that was modulated in frequency to track the F0 of the speech, in amplitude with the envelope of the low-frequency speech, or both. A four-channel vocoder simulated electric hearing. Significant benefit over vocoder alone was observed with the addition of a tone carrying F0 or envelope cues, and both cues combined typically provided significantly more benefit than either alone. The intelligibility improvement over vocoder was between 24 and 57 percentage points, and was unaffected by the presence of a tone carrying these cues from a background talker. These results confirm the importance of the F0 of target speech for EAS (in simulation). They indicate that significant benefit can be provided by a tone carrying F0 and amplitude envelope cues. The results support a glimpsing account of EAS and argue against segregation.

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

[2]  D. Fry Duration and Intensity as Physical Correlates of Linguistic Stress , 1954 .

[3]  Ying-Yee Kong,et al.  Improved speech recognition in noise in simulated binaurally combined acoustic and electric stimulation. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  C. Turner,et al.  Combining acoustic and electrical hearing , 2003 .

[5]  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.

[6]  Q. Summerfield,et al.  Modeling the perception of concurrent vowels: vowels with different fundamental frequencies. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  S. G. Nooteboom,et al.  Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices , 1982 .

[9]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Acoustic Simulations of Combined Electric and Acoustic Hearing (EAS) , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[10]  Arthur Boothroyd,et al.  A sentence test of speech perception: reliability, set equivalence, and short term learning , 1985 .

[11]  G. Weismer,et al.  The effects of a flattened fundamental frequency on intelligibility at the sentence level. , 1999, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[12]  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.

[13]  Hideki Kawahara,et al.  YIN, a fundamental frequency estimator for speech and music. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Unintelligible Low-Frequency Sound Enhances Simulated Cochlear-Implant Speech Recognition in Noise , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[15]  Sid P. Bacon,et al.  A new approach to electric‐acoustic stimulation , 2008 .

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

[17]  John F. Culling,et al.  Effects of reverberation on perceptual segregation of competing voices , 2003 .

[18]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  A Faulkner,et al.  Speech pattern hearing aids for the profoundly hearing impaired: speech perception and auditory abilities. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[21]  M. Dorman,et al.  Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices. , 2004, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[22]  Sven L Mattys,et al.  Acoustic cues to lexical segmentation: a study of resynthesized speech. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Michael K. Qin,et al.  Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  D D Dirks,et al.  Frequency-importance functions for words in high- and low-context sentences. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[25]  A. Lotto,et al.  Influence of fundamental frequency on stop-consonant voicing perception: a case of learned covariation or auditory enhancement? , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  A. Boothroyd,et al.  Voice Fundamental Frequency as an Auditory Supplement to the Speechreading of Sentences , 1988, Ear and hearing.

[27]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  C. Darwin,et al.  Perceptual separation of simultaneous vowels: within and across-formant grouping by F0. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[30]  Paul Duchnowski,et al.  Development of speechreading supplements based on automatic speech recognition , 2000, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng..

[31]  V Ball,et al.  Speech perception with the Vienna extra-cochlear single-channel implant: a comparison of two approaches to speech coding. , 1986, British journal of audiology.