A Cepstral Peak Prominence (CPP) Voice Analysis in Iranian Post-lingual Deaf Adult Cochlear Implant Users

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatemeh Aghaei ◽  
Hassan Khoramshahi ◽  
Peyman Zamani ◽  
Ali Dehqan ◽  
Saeed Hesam
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Voice Analysis ◽  
Cepstral Peak Prominence

Objective Voice Analysis of Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients and Comparison With Hearing Aids Users and Hearing Controls

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 505.e11-505.e18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Narges Jafari ◽  
Farzad Izadi ◽  
Abolfazl Salehi ◽  
Payman Dabirmoghaddam ◽  
Fariba Yadegari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Voice Analysis

Voice analysis for a cochlear implant.

2010 ◽  
Vol 128 (4) ◽  
pp. 2324-2324
Author(s):  
Jorge Becerra Garcia ◽  
Joel Flores Martinez ◽  
Patricia Lorena Ramirez Rangel
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Voice Analysis

Acoustic Voice Analysis in Postlingual Deaf Adult Cochlear Implant Users: A Within-Group Comparison Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Saki ◽  
Arash Bayat ◽  
Soheila Nikakhlagh ◽  
Peyman Zamani ◽  
Atefeh Khaleghi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Group Comparison ◽  
Comparison Study ◽  
Voice Analysis ◽  
Acoustic Voice Analysis

Evaluation of Acoustic Analyses of Voice in Nonoptimized Conditions

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (12) ◽  
pp. 3991-3999
Author(s):  
Benjamin van der Woerd ◽  
Min Wu ◽  
Vijay Parsa ◽  
Philip C. Doyle ◽  
Kevin Fung
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Voice Quality ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Acoustic Measurements ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Environment Analysis ◽  
Acoustic Measures ◽  
Recording Conditions ◽  
Cepstral Peak Prominence

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the fidelity and accuracy of a smartphone microphone and recording environment on acoustic measurements of voice. Method A prospective cohort proof-of-concept study. Two sets of prerecorded samples (a) sustained vowels (/a/) and (b) Rainbow Passage sentence were played for recording via the internal iPhone microphone and the Blue Yeti USB microphone in two recording environments: a sound-treated booth and quiet office setting. Recordings were presented using a calibrated mannequin speaker with a fixed signal intensity (69 dBA), at a fixed distance (15 in.). Each set of recordings (iPhone—audio booth, Blue Yeti—audio booth, iPhone—office, and Blue Yeti—office), was time-windowed to ensure the same signal was evaluated for each condition. Acoustic measures of voice including fundamental frequency ( f o ), jitter, shimmer, harmonic-to-noise ratio (HNR), and cepstral peak prominence (CPP), were generated using a widely used analysis program (Praat Version 6.0.50). The data gathered were compared using a repeated measures analysis of variance. Two separate data sets were used. The set of vowel samples included both pathologic ( n = 10) and normal ( n = 10), male ( n = 5) and female ( n = 15) speakers. The set of sentence stimuli ranged in perceived voice quality from normal to severely disordered with an equal number of male ( n = 12) and female ( n = 12) speakers evaluated. Results The vowel analyses indicated that the jitter, shimmer, HNR, and CPP were significantly different based on microphone choice and shimmer, HNR, and CPP were significantly different based on the recording environment. Analysis of sentences revealed a statistically significant impact of recording environment and microphone type on HNR and CPP. While statistically significant, the differences across the experimental conditions for a subset of the acoustic measures (viz., jitter and CPP) have shown differences that fell within their respective normative ranges. Conclusions Both microphone and recording setting resulted in significant differences across several acoustic measurements. However, a subset of the acoustic measures that were statistically significant across the recording conditions showed small overall differences that are unlikely to have clinical significance in interpretation. For these acoustic measures, the present data suggest that, although a sound-treated setting is ideal for voice sample collection, a smartphone microphone can capture acceptable recordings for acoustic signal analysis.

Letter to the Editor Concerning Skuk et al., “Parameter-Specific Morphing Reveals Contributions of Timbre and Fundamental Frequency Cues to the Perception of Voice Gender and Age in Cochlear Implant Users”

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (12) ◽  
pp. 4325-4326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hartmut Meister ◽  
Katrin Fuersen ◽  
Barbara Streicher ◽  
Ruth Lang-Roth ◽  
Martin Walger
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Fundamental Frequency ◽  
Stimulus Type ◽  
Voice Perception ◽  
Letter To The Editor ◽  
Gender And Age ◽  
General Influence

Purpose The purpose of this letter is to compare results by Skuk et al. (2020) with Meister et al. (2016) and to point to a potential general influence of stimulus type. Conclusion Our conclusion is that presenting sentences may give cochlear implant recipients the opportunity to use timbre cues for voice perception. This might not be the case when presenting brief and sparse stimuli such as consonant–vowel–consonant or single words, which were applied in the majority of studies.

Perceptual Learning of Vocoded Speech With and Without Contralateral Hearing: Implications for Cochlear Implant Rehabilitation

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Martin Chavant ◽  
Alexis Hervais-Adelman ◽  
Olivier Macherey
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Perceptual Learning ◽  
Speech Signal ◽  
Training Phase ◽  
Monosyllabic Words ◽  
Low Pass ◽  
Contralateral Ear ◽  
Number Of Individuals ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Vocoded Speech

Purpose An increasing number of individuals with residual or even normal contralateral hearing are being considered for cochlear implantation. It remains unknown whether the presence of contralateral hearing is beneficial or detrimental to their perceptual learning of cochlear implant (CI)–processed speech. The aim of this experiment was to provide a first insight into this question using acoustic simulations of CI processing. Method Sixty normal-hearing listeners took part in an auditory perceptual learning experiment. Each subject was randomly assigned to one of three groups of 20 referred to as NORMAL, LOWPASS, and NOTHING. The experiment consisted of two test phases separated by a training phase. In the test phases, all subjects were tested on recognition of monosyllabic words passed through a six-channel “PSHC” vocoder presented to a single ear. In the training phase, which consisted of listening to a 25-min audio book, all subjects were also presented with the same vocoded speech in one ear but the signal they received in their other ear differed across groups. The NORMAL group was presented with the unprocessed speech signal, the LOWPASS group with a low-pass filtered version of the speech signal, and the NOTHING group with no sound at all. Results The improvement in speech scores following training was significantly smaller for the NORMAL than for the LOWPASS and NOTHING groups. Conclusions This study suggests that the presentation of normal speech in the contralateral ear reduces or slows down perceptual learning of vocoded speech but that an unintelligible low-pass filtered contralateral signal does not have this effect. Potential implications for the rehabilitation of CI patients with partial or full contralateral hearing are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document