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.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Talker intelligibility differences in cochlear implant listeners
1.Benoit, C. , Grice, M. , and Hazan, V. (1996). “The SUS test: A method for the assessment of text-to-speech synthesis intelligibility using semantically unpredictable sentences,” Speech Commun. 18, 381–392.
3.Bradlow, A. R. , Torretta, G. M. , and Pisoni, D. B. (1996). “Intelligibility of normal speech: 1. Global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics,” Speech Commun. 20, 255–272.
4.Collett, D. (2003). Modelling binary data, 2nd ed. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL), pp. 206–210.
5.Faulkner, A. , Rosen, S. , and Norman, C. (2006). “The right information can matter more than frequency-place alignment: Simulations of frequency-aligned and upward shifting cochlear implant processors for an electrode array insertion depth of ,” Ear Hear. 27, 139–152.
6.Ferguson, S. H. , and Kewley-Port, D. (2002). “Vowel intelligibility in clear and conversational speech for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112, 259–271.
7.Friesen, L. M. , Shannon, R. V. , Baskent, D. , and Wang, X. (2001). “Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110, 1150–1163.
8.Green, T. , Faulkner, A. , and Rosen, S. (2002). “Spectral and temporal cues to pitch in noise-excited vocoder simulations of continuous-interleaved-sampling cochlear implants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112, 2155–2164.
9.Green, T. , Faulkner, A. , and Rosen, S. (2004). “Enhancing temporal cues to voice pitch in continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 2298–2310.
10.Greenwood, D. D. (1990). “A cochlear frequency-position function for several species— later,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87, 2592–2605.
11.Hazan, V. , and Markham, D. (2004). “Acoustic-phonetic correlates of talker intelligibility for adults and children,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 3108–3118.
12.Krause, J. C. , and Braida, L. D. (2002). “Investigating alternative forms of clear speech: The effects of speaking rate and speaking mode on intelligibility,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112, 2165–2172.
13.Krause, J. C. , and Braida, L. D. (2004). “Acoustic properties of naturally produced clear speech at normal speaking rates,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115, 362–378.
14.Liu, S. , Del Rio, E. , Bradlow, A. R. , and Zeng, F.-G. (2004). “Clear speech perception in acoustic and electric hearing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 2374–2383.
15.Loizou, P. C. , Dorman, M. F. , and Powell, V. (1998). “The recognition of vowels produced by men, women, boys, and girls by cochlear implant patients using a six-channel CIS processor,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103, 1141–1149.
17.Payton, K. L. , and Braida, L. D. (1999). “A method to determine the speech transmission index from speech waveforms,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106, 3637–3648.
18.Payton, K. L. , Uchanski, R. M. , and Braida, L. D. (1994). “Intelligibility of conversational and clear speech in noise and reverberation for listeners with normal and impaired hearing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 1581–1592.
19.Picheny, M. A. , Durlach, N. I. , and Braida, L. D. (1985). “Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. I. Intelligibility differences between clear and conversational speech,” J. Speech Hear. Res. 28, 96–103.
20.Picheny, M. A. , Durlach, N. I. , and Braida, L. D. (1986). “Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. II. Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech,” J. Speech Hear. Res. 29, 434–446.
21.Shannon, R. V. , Zeng, F.-G. , Kamath, V. , Wygonski, J. , and Ekelid, M. (1995). “Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues,” Science 270, 303–304.
22.Shannon, R. V. , Zeng, F.-G. , and Wygonski, J. (1998). “Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104, 2467–2476.
23.Steeneken, H. J. M. , and Houtgast, T. (1980). “A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 67, 318–326.
24.Uchanski, R. M. , Choi, S. S. , Braida, L. D. , Reed, C. M. , and Durlach, N. I. (1996). “Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. 4. Further studies of the role of speaking rate,” J. Speech Hear. Res. 39, 494–509.
Article metrics loading...
People vary in the intelligibility of their speech. This study investigated whether across-talker intelligibility differences observed in normally-hearing listeners are also found in cochlear implant (CI) users. Speech perception for male, female, and child pairs of talkers differing in intelligibility was assessed with actual and simulated CI processing and in normal hearing. While overall speech recognition was, as expected, poorer for CI users, differences in intelligibility across talkers were consistent across all listener groups. This suggests that the primary determinants of intelligibility differences are preserved in the CI-processed signal, though no single critical acoustic property could be identified.
Full text loading...
Most read this month