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.
Across-site patterns of modulation detection: Relation to speech recognitiona)
a)A portion of this work was presented at the 2011 Meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, Baltimore, MD.
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1121/1.3701879
/content/asa/journal/jasa/131/5/10.1121/1.3701879
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/131/5/10.1121/1.3701879

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Masked MDTs for stimulation sites 2-21 are displayed for one subject (S85) to demonstrate the site-selection approach used to construct the best-MDT MAP and the worst-MDT MAP. For each site, the mean MDT and the range for three repeated measures are shown. The electrode array (sites 2-21) was divided into 5 segments as shown (labeled A–E). From each segment, the two sites with the lowest (best) masked MDTs were selected to construct the best-MDT MAP (open symbols). In contrast, two electrodes with the highest (worst) masked MDTs were selected from each segment to construct the worst-MDT MAP (filled symbols).

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

MDT means and ranges are shown as a function of stimulation site. Each panel represents data from one subject with subject numbers shown in the upper left corner of each panel. Open symbols represent MDTs in quiet, and filled symbols represent MDTs in the presence of a masker on the adjacent apical electrode. Across-site means (ASM) are calculated separately for MDTs in quiet and masked MDTs and displayed for each subject in the lower right corners of the panels. Larger negative values indicate better performance.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Scatter plots are shown to illustrate the correlation in ASMs (left-hand panel) and ASVs (right-hand panel) between the MDTs in quiet (x axis) and masked MDTs (y axis) for each listener. The solid lines are best fit linear regression lines; r 2 and P values are shown in the upper left corners of the panels. In (A), all points are slightly above the dashed diagonal line, indicating that ASM masked MDTs were a little higher in all subjects than ASM MDTs in quiet.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

ASMs and ASVs of MDTs are plotted as a function of place of stimulation. The electrode array was divided into 5 segments of four electrodes in each segment as shown in Fig. 1. ASM (upper panels) and ASV (bottom panels) are shown for MDTs in quiet (a), masked MDTs (b), and amount of masking (c). An asterisk represents a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The error bars represent standard deviations.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

The amount of masking in decibels (masked MDT minus MDT in quiet) is shown as a function of stimulation site. Each subject is represented in a different panel. The dashed line indicates no differences in MDTs when a masker was present; a positive value indicates an increase in MDTs in the presence of an interleaved masker on the adjacent site. ASM amount of masking is given for each subject at the lower right corner of each panel.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

ASM and ASV for MDTs (A) and amount of masking (B) are compared for the two sets of electrodes that were selected to construct the best-MDT MAP and the worst-MDT MAP. An asterisk represents a statistically significant difference between the two MAPs at P value of 0.05. The error bars represent standard deviations.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Average discrimination percent correct scores for consonants (upper panels) and vowels (bottom panels) are shown as a function MAP. The shaded area represents the range of the scores across the 12 listeners. From left to right, the panels show discrimination scores as a function of increasing signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in dB. The error bars represent standard deviations.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Listeners’ performance on sentence discrimination tasks is shown for HINT sentences in quiet (A) and for CUNY sentences in noise with adaptive SNRs (B). In (A), percent correct is measured and, therefore, the greater the score, the better the performance. In (B), reception thresholds for sentences are measured in decibel SNR, and hence, the smaller the number, the better the performance. Individual data as well as averages across all subjects are compared here for the best-MDT MAPs (light bars) and the worst-MDT MAPs (dark bars); error bars represent the range. Across-subject mean are shown in the right-hand portion of each panel; the error bars represent standard deviations.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Subject information.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Consonant and vowels average percent scores.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/131/5/10.1121/1.3701879
2012-05-04
2014-04-18
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Across-site patterns of modulation detection: Relation to speech recognitiona)
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/131/5/10.1121/1.3701879
10.1121/1.3701879
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM