1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Effects of masking noise on vowel and sibilant contrasts in normal-hearing speakers and postlingually deafened cochlear implant users
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1121/1.2384848
    + View Affiliations - Hide Affiliations
    Affiliations:
    1 Speech Communication Group, Research Laboratory of Electronics, and Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 36-511, 50 Vassar Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 and Department of Cognitive and Neural Systems, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215
    2 Speech Communication Group, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 36-511, 50 Vassar Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
    3 Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115 and Speech Communication Group, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 36-511, 50 Vassar Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
    4 Department of Cognitive and Neural Systems, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215 and Speech Communication Group, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 36-511, 50 Vassar Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
    5 Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, Boston University, 635 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215 and Speech Communication Group, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 36-511, 50 Vassar Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
    6 Speech Communication Group, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 36-511, 50 Vassar Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 and Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, Connecticut 06511
    7 Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98015
    8 Speech Communication Group, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 36-511, 50 Vassar Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 and Department of Cognitive and Neural Systems, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
    9 Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the Maryland Association of County Health Officers, Baltimore, MD 21205
    a) Electronic mail: perkell@speech.mit.edu
    J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121, 505 (2007); http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2384848
/content/asa/journal/jasa/121/1/10.1121/1.2384848
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/121/1/10.1121/1.2384848

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Schematic illustration of hypotheses for normal-hearing speakers (panel A) and cochlear implant users (panel B) recorded at and post-implant.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

AVS (A-mels), Duration (D-ms) and SPL (S-dB) vs. noise-to-signal ratio (dB) for each of the seven speakers who had normal hearing. For each panel, values of AVS are on the left vertical axis; the range of durations is shown by numbers in the upper and lower right-hand corners; values of SPL are on the right vertical axis. Values of N/S were obtained by multiplying extracted S/N by and binning the resulting values into seven equally-spaced intervals. The values on the x-axis are located at the centers of the class intervals. Results from the quiet conditions are shown separately at the left of each plot (N/S is arbitrary.) Subject designations: ; . hearing. Error bars: standard error about the mean.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Data averaged across six speakers with normal hearing (values in standard deviations). To compensate for inter-subject differences in data averages and ranges, each subject’s data were standardized and the standardized values were averaged across subjects. See caption for Fig. 2 for remaining details. Data for Subject FNH7 were not included.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

AVS (A-mels), Duration (D-ms) and SPL (S-dB) vs. noise-to-signal ratio (N/S-dB) for each of the 7 implant users. There are two plots for each implant user, an upper one of data from one month and a lower one from one year post-implant. Subject designations: . For further detail, see caption of Fig. 2 .

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Data averaged across the seven implant users, at one-month (panel A) and one-year (panel B) post-implant. See caption of Fig. 3 for remaining details.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Sibilant contrast distance (C), spectral mean for /s/ (S) and spectral mean for /ʃ/ (H) vs N/S (standardized values, as for Figs. 3 and 5 ). Results for speakers with normal hearing are shown in panel A, for implant users at one-month in panel B and for one-year post-implant in panel C. (For further details, see captions of Figs. 3 and 5 .)

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Schematic diagram illustrating a possible explanation of the results. Average vowel spacing vs. normalized N/S. The solid function (NH) shows the result for the speakers with normal hearing; the dashed function (Cl-Yr), for the implant users at one year post-implant, and the dotted line (CI-Mo), for the implant users at one month.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Participant characteristics.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Summary of ANOVA results. of variance accounted for by the effect. (eta-squared) is calculated from ( Young, 1993 ). NL: Noise level.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/121/1/10.1121/1.2384848
2007-01-01
2014-04-25
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Effects of masking noise on vowel and sibilant contrasts in normal-hearing speakers and postlingually deafened cochlear implant users
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/121/1/10.1121/1.2384848
10.1121/1.2384848
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM