Processing F0 with cochlear implants: Modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition

Chatterjee, Monita; Peng, Shu Chen

doi:10.1016/j.heares.2007.11.004

Cited by 167 publications

(194 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

172

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ability to obtain some pitch change information in the 113 Hz F0, 3n300 but not in the 226 Hz F0, 3n300 condition is consistent with previous work showing that temporal cues to voice pitch are less effective as F0 increases above about 200 Hz ͑Arehart and Burns, 1999;Green et al, 2002Green et al, , 2004Chatterjee and Peng, 2008;Laneau et al, 2006;Patterson et al, 1978͒. This occurs because sensitivity to modulation decreases with increasing modulation frequency ͑Grant et al, 1998͒.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech

Souza

Rosen²

2009

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The choice of processing parameters for vocoded signals may have an important effect on the availability of various auditory features. Experiment 1 varied envelope cutoff frequency ͑30 and 300 Hz͒, carrier type ͑sine and noise͒, and number of bands ͑2-5͒ for vocoded speech presented to normal-hearing listeners. Performance was better with a high cutoff for sine-vocoding, with no effect of cutoff for noise-vocoding. With a low cutoff, performance was better for noise-vocoding than for sine-vocoding. With a high cutoff, performance was better for sine-vocoding. Experiment 2 measured perceptibility of cues to voice pitch variations. A noise carrier combined with a high cutoff allowed intonation to be perceived to some degree but performance was best in high-cutoff sine conditions. A low cutoff led to poorest performance, regardless of carrier. Experiment 3 tested the relative contributions of comodulation across bands and spectral density to improved performance with a sine carrier and high cutoff. Comodulation across bands had no effect so it appears that sidebands providing a denser spectrum improved performance. These results indicate that carrier type in combination with envelope cutoff can alter the available cues in vocoded speech, factors which must be considered in interpreting results with vocoded signals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech

Souza

Rosen²

2009

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar findings were observed by Chatterjee and Peng (2008). In their study no significant correlation was obtained between MDTs measured at soft levels (i.e., at 50% of the dynamic range) and speech intonation recognition presented at comfortable levels.…”

Section: Relationship Between Modulation Detection and Speech Perceptionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Cochlear Implant Stimulation Rates and Speech Perception

Arora¹

2012

Modern Speech Recognition Approaches With Case Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thus, less-thanresolute representations of F0s is a problem for implants, and this problem has received considerable attention (e.g., Wouters, 2001, 2004;Luo and Fu, 2004;Green et al, 2005;Laneau et al, 2006;Carroll and Zeng, 2007;Chatterjee and Peng, 2007;Sucher and McDermott, 2007). Unfortunately, a way to improve the representations has not been identified to date despite these efforts.…”

Section: Less-than-resolute Representations Of Fundamental Frequenciementioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aims of this paper are to (i) provide a brief history of cochlear implants; (ii) present a status report on the current state of implant engineering and the levels of speech understanding enabled by that engineering; (iii) describe limitations of current signal processing strategies and (iv) suggest new directions for research. With current technology the "average" implant patient, when listening to predictable conversations in quiet, is able to communicate with relative ease. However, in an environment typical of a workplace the average patient has a great deal of difficulty. Patients who are "above average" in terms of speech understanding, can achieve 100% correct scores on the most difficult tests of speech understanding in quiet but also have significant difficulty when signals are presented in noise. The major factors in these outcomes appear to be (i) a loss of low-frequency, fine structure information possibly due to the envelope extraction algorithms common to cochlear implant signal processing; (ii) a limitation in the number of effective channels of stimulation due to overlap in electric fields from electrodes, and (iii) central processing deficits, especially for patients with poor speech understanding. Two recent developments, bilateral implants and combined electric and acoustic stimulation, have promise to remediate some of the difficulties experienced by patients in noise and to reinstate low-frequency fine structure information. If other possibilities are realized, e.g., electrodes that emit drugs to inhibit cell death following trauma and to induce the growth of neurites toward electrodes, then the future is very bright indeed.

show abstract

Processing F0 with cochlear implants: Modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition

Cited by 167 publications

References 43 publications

Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech

Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech

Cochlear Implant Stimulation Rates and Speech Perception

Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About