Access to semantic cues does not lead to perceptual restoration of interrupted speech in cochlear-implant users

Brittany N. Jaekel; Sarah Weinstein; Rochelle S. Newman; Matthew J. Goupell

doi:10.1121/10.0003573

Access to semantic cues does not lead to perceptual restoration of interrupted speech in cochlear-implant users

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America ◽

10.1121/10.0003573 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 149 (3) ◽

pp. 1488-1497

Author(s):

Brittany N. Jaekel ◽

Sarah Weinstein ◽

Rochelle S. Newman ◽

Matthew J. Goupell

Keyword(s):

Cochlear Implant ◽

Semantic Cues ◽

Interrupted Speech

Download Full-text

The Intelligibility of Interrupted Speech: Cochlear Implant Users and Normal Hearing Listeners

Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology ◽

10.1007/s10162-016-0565-9 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 17 (5) ◽

pp. 475-491 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

Pranesh Bhargava ◽

Etienne Gaudrain ◽

Deniz Başkent

Keyword(s):

Cochlear Implant ◽

Normal Hearing ◽

Interrupted Speech

Download Full-text

Comparison of the Normal and Noise-Suppression Settings on the Spectra 22 Speech Processor of the Nucleus TM 22-Channel Cochlear Implant System

American Journal of Audiology ◽

10.1044/1059-0889.0403.55 ◽

1995 ◽

Vol 4 (3) ◽

pp. 55-58 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Laura K. Holden ◽

Margaret W. Skinner ◽

Timothy A. Holden

Keyword(s):

Cochlear Implant ◽

Noise Suppression ◽

Speech Processor ◽

Implant System

Download Full-text

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”

Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research ◽

10.1044/2020_jslhr-20-00563 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 63 (12) ◽

pp. 4325-4326 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

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.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research ◽

10.1044/2020_jslhr-20-00385 ◽

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.

Download Full-text