Mandarin Tone and Vowel Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users: Effects of Talker Variability and Bimodal Hearing

Objectives: For cochlear implant (CI) users with residual low-frequency acoustic hearing in the nonimplanted ear, bimodal hearing combining the use of a CI and a contralateral hearing aid (HA) may provide more salient talker voice cues than CI alone to handle the variability of talker identity across trials. This study tested the effects of talker variability, bimodal hearing, and their interaction on response accuracy and time of CI users’ Mandarin tone, vowel, and syllable recognition (i.e., combined Mandarin tone and vowel recognition in this study). Design: Fifteen prelingually deafened native Mandarin-speaking CI users (at age 20 or lower) participated in this study. Four talkers each produced six Mandarin single-vowel syllables in four lexical tones. The stimuli were presented in quiet via a single loudspeaker. To study the effects of talker variability, Mandarin tone, vowel, and syllable recognition was tested in two presentation conditions: with stimuli blocked according to talker (blocked-talker condition) or mixed across talkers from trial to trial (mixed-talker condition). To explore the effects of bimodal hearing, two processor conditions were tested: CI alone or CI + HA. The cumulative response time was recorded as an indirect indicator of the cognitive load or listening effort in each condition. The correlations were computed between demographic/hearing factors (e.g., hearing thresholds in the nonimplanted ear) and bimodal performance/benefits (where bimodal benefits refer to the performance differences between CI alone and CI + HA). Results: Mandarin tone recognition with both CI alone and CI + HA was significantly poorer in the mixed-talker condition than in the blocked-talker condition, while vowel recognition was comparable in the two presentation conditions. Bimodal hearing significantly improved Mandarin tone recognition but not vowel recognition. Mandarin syllable recognition was significantly affected by both talker variability and bimodal hearing. The cumulative response time significantly reduced with CI + HA compared with CI alone, but remained invariant with respect to talker variability. There was no interaction between talker variability and bimodal hearing for any performance measure adopted in this study. Correlation analyses revealed that the bimodal performance and benefits in Mandarin tone, vowel, and syllable recognition could not be predicted by the hearing thresholds in the nonimplanted ear or by the demographic factors of the participants. Conclusions: Talker variability from trial to trial significantly degraded Mandarin tone and syllable recognition performance in both the CI alone and CI + HA conditions. While bimodal hearing did not reduce the talker variability effects on Mandarin tone and syllable recognition, generally better Mandarin tone and syllable recognition performance with shorter response time (an indicator of less listening effort) was observed when a contralateral HA was used in conjunction with the CI. On the other hand, vowel recognition was not significantly affected by either talker variability or bimodal hearing, because ceiling effects could not be counted out of the vowel recognition results.

[1]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Talker Discrimination by Prelingually Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants: Preliminary Results , 2002, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[2]  Xin Luo,et al.  Concurrent-vowel and tone recognition by Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users , 2009, Hearing Research.

[3]  Xin Luo,et al.  Speaker normalization for Chinese vowel recognition in cochlear implants , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[4]  D. Başkent,et al.  Listening effort with cochlear implant simulations. , 2013, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[5]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[6]  Xin Luo,et al.  Contribution of low-frequency acoustic information to Chinese speech recognition in cochlear implant simulations. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  David B Pisoni,et al.  Talker and lexical effects on audiovisual word recognition by adults with cochlear implants. , 2003, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[8]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Long-term memory in speech perception: Some new findings on talker variability, speaking rate and perceptual learning , 1993, Speech Commun..

[9]  B C Moore,et al.  Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times. , 1993, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[10]  Xin Luo,et al.  Effects of stimulus duration on amplitude modulation processing with cochlear implants. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  S Gatehouse,et al.  Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. , 1990, British journal of audiology.

[12]  C. Douglas Creelman,et al.  Case of the Unknown Talker , 1957 .

[13]  R. Miyamoto,et al.  Effects of Age at Implantation in Young Children , 2002, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[14]  Xin Luo,et al.  Speech Recognition and Temporal Amplitude Modulation Processing by Mandarin-Speaking Cochlear Implant Users , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[15]  F. Baller A Mandarin primer = 英華合璧 , 2022 .

[16]  R. Miyamoto,et al.  Speech Perception in Children with Cochlear Implants: Effects of Lexical Difficulty, Talker Variability, and Word Length , 2000, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[17]  Patrick C M Wong,et al.  Perceptual normalization for inter- and intratalker variation in Cantonese level tones. , 2003, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[18]  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.

[19]  B C Moore,et al.  Perceptual consequences of cochlear hearing loss and their implications for the design of hearing aids. , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[20]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Spectral and Temporal Measures in Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users: On the Mechanism of Electroacoustic Hearing Benefits , 2012, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[21]  Rolph Houben,et al.  Using response time to speech as a measure for listening effort , 2013, International journal of audiology.

[22]  A. Zekveld,et al.  Pupil Response as an Indication of Effortful Listening: The Influence of Sentence Intelligibility , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[23]  Hintat Cheung,et al.  Perception and Production of Mandarin Tones in Prelingually Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[24]  Ning Zhou,et al.  Relationship Between Tone Perception and Production in Prelingually Deafened Children With Cochlear Implants , 2013, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[25]  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.

[26]  Liang Tao,et al.  Identification of multi-speaker Mandarin tones in noise by native and non-native listeners , 2010, Speech Commun..

[27]  H. El-Kashlan,et al.  Pediatric Cochlear Implant Patient Performance as a Function of Age at Implantation , 2004, Otology and Neurotology.

[28]  Xin Luo,et al.  The effect of context duration on Mandarin listeners' tone normalization. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  F. Wightman,et al.  Speech perception as a multilevel processing system , 1983, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.

[30]  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.

[31]  Kevin C P Yuen,et al.  Lexical tone and word recognition in noise of Mandarin-speaking children who use cochlear implants and hearing aids in opposite ears , 2009, Cochlear implants international.

[32]  Xin Luo,et al.  Enhancing Chinese tone recognition by manipulating amplitude envelope: implications for cochlear implants. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Xin Luo,et al.  Talker-identification training using simulations of binaurally combined electric and acoustic hearing: generalization to speech and emotion recognition. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  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.

[35]  Ronald Y. Chang,et al.  Contribution of bimodal hearing to lexical tone normalization in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users , 2014, Hearing Research.

[36]  Adriana A. Zekveld,et al.  Top–down and bottom–up processes in speech comprehension , 2006, NeuroImage.

[37]  D B Pisoni,et al.  The effect of talker variability on word recognition in preschool children. , 1997, Developmental psychology.

[38]  Xin Luo,et al.  Concurrent-vowel and tone recognitions in acoustic and simulated electric hearing. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  J. Mullennix,et al.  Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Speech perception, word recognition and the structure of the lexicon , 1985, Speech Commun..

[41]  Teresa Y. C. Ching,et al.  Binaural Benefits for Adults Who Use Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants in Opposite Ears , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[42]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Talker-specific learning in speech perception , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[43]  F. Zeng,et al.  Speaker recognition with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  Q. Fu,et al.  Effects of talker variability on vowel recognition in cochlear implants. , 2006, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.