Voice Discrimination in Quiet and in Background Noise by Simulated and Real Cochlear Implant Users
Publication: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume 66, Number 12
Pages 5169-5186
Abstract
Purpose:
Cochlear implant (CI) users demonstrate poor voice discrimination (VD) in quiet conditions based on the speaker's fundamental frequency (fo) and formant frequencies (i.e., vocal-tract length [VTL]). Our purpose was to examine the effect of background noise at levels that allow good speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) on VD via acoustic CI simulations and CI hearing.
Method:
Forty-eight normal-hearing (NH) listeners who listened via noise-excited (n = 20) or sinewave (n = 28) vocoders and 10 prelingually deaf CI users (i.e., whose hearing loss began before language acquisition) participated in the study. First, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) that yields 70.7% correct SRT was assessed using an adaptive sentence-in-noise test. Next, the CI simulation listeners performed 12 adaptive VDs: six in quiet conditions, two with each cue (fo, VTL, fo + VTL), and six amid speech-shaped noise. The CI participants performed six VDs: one with each cue, in quiet and amid noise. SNR at VD testing was 5 dB higher than the individual's SRT in noise (SRTn +5 dB).
Results:
Results showed the following: (a) Better VD was achieved via the noise-excited than the sinewave vocoder, with the noise-excited vocoder better mimicking CI VD; (b) background noise had a limited negative effect on VD, only for the CI simulation listeners; and (c) there was a significant association between SNR at testing and VTL VD only for the CI simulation listeners.
Conclusions:
For NH listeners who listen to CI simulations, noise that allows good SRT can nevertheless impede VD, probably because VD depends more on bottom-up sensory processing. Conversely, for prelingually deaf CI users, noise that allows good SRT hardly affects VD, suggesting that they rely strongly on bottom-up processing for both VD and speech recognition.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Abdel-Latif, K. H. A., & Meister, H. (2022). Speech recognition and listening effort in cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing listeners. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 15.
American National Standards Institute. (2018). Specification for audiometers: ANSI S3.6-2018. https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/asa/ansiasas32018
Ananthakrishnan, S., & Luo, X. (2022). Effects of temporal envelope cutoff frequency, number of channels, and carrier type on brainstem neural representation of pitch in vocoded speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 65(8), 3146–3164.
Ananthakrishnan, S., Luo, X., & Krishnan, A. (2017). Human frequency following responses to vocoded speech. Ear and Hearing, 38(5), e256–e267.
Anderson, S., & Kraus, N. (2010). Sensory-cognitive interaction in the neural encoding of speech in noise: A review. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 21(9), 575–585.
AuBuchon, A. M., Pisoni, D. B., & Kronenberger, W. G. (2019). Evaluating pediatric cochlear implant users' encoding, storage, and retrieval strategies in verbal working memory. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62(4), 1016–1032.
Başkent, D., & Gaudrain, E. (2016). Musician advantage for speech-on-speech perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(3), EL51–EL56.
Başkent, D., Gaudrain, E., Tamati, T. N., & Wagner, A. (2016). Perception and psychoacoustics of speech in cochlear implant users. In A. T. Cacace, E. de Kleine, A. G. Holt, & P. van Dijk (Eds.), Scientific foundations of audiology: Perspectives from physics, biology, modeling, and medicine (pp. 285–319). Plural.
Belin, P., Fecteau, S., & Bédard, C. (2004). Thinking the voice: Neural correlates of voice perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 129–135.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2014). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.4.17) [Computer software]. https://www.praat.org
Bregman, A., & McAdams, S. (1994). Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95(2), 1177–1178.
Brokx, J. P. L., & Nooteboom, S. G. (1982). Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices. Journal of Phonetics, 10(1), 23–36.
Bronkhorst, A. W., (2015). The cocktail-party problem revisited: Early processing and selection of multi-talker speech. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 77(5), 1465–1487.
Brungart, D. S. (2001). Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109(3), 1101–1109.
Bugannim, Y., Roth, D. A., Zechoval, D., & Kishon-Rabin, L. (2019). Training of speech perception in noise in pre-lingual hearing impaired adults with cochlear implants compared with normal hearing adults. Otology & Neurotology, 40(3), e316–e325.
Caldwell, A., & Nittrouer, S. (2013). Speech perception in noise by children with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56(1), 13–30.
Carlyon, R. P., & Shackleton, T. M. (1994). Comparing the fundamental frequencies of resolved and unresolved harmonics: Evidence for two pitch mechanisms? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95(6), 3541–3554.
Chandramouli, S. H., Kronenberger, W. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (2019). Verbal learning and memory in early-implanted, prelingually deaf adolescent and adult cochlear implant users. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62(4), 1033–1050.
Chatterjee, M., & Peng, S. C. (2008). Processing F0 with cochlear implants: Modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition. Hearing Research, 235(1–2), 143–156.
Ching, T. Y., Zhang, V. W., Flynn, C., Burns, L., Button, L., Hou, S., McGhie, K., & Van Buynder, P. (2018). Factors influencing speech perception in noise for 5-year-old children using hearing aids or cochlear implants. International Journal of Audiology, 57(Suppl. 2), S70–S80.
Chuenwattanapranithi, S., Xu, Y., Thipakorn, B., & Maneewongvatana, S. (2008). Encoding emotions in speech with the size code. A perceptual investigation. Phonetica, 65(4), 210–230.
Cleary, M., Pisoni, D. B., & Kirk, K. I. (2005). Influence of voice similarity on talker discrimination in children with normal hearing and children with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(1), 204–223.
Colby, S., & Orena, A. J. (2022). Recognizing voices through a cochlear implant: A systematic review of voice perception, talker discrimination, and talker identification. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 65(8), 3165–3194.
Cullington, H. E., & Zeng, F. G. (2008). Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(1), 450–461.
Darwin, C. J., Brungart, D. S., & Simpson, B. D. (2003). Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(5), 2913–2922.
Darwin, C. J., & Hukin, R. W. (2000). Effects of reverberation on spatial, prosodic, and vocal-tract size cues to selective attention. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108(1), 335–342.
Dimitrijevic, A., Pratt, H., & Starr, A. (2013). Auditory cortical activity in normal hearing subjects to consonant vowels presented in quiet and in noise. Clinical Neurophysiology, 124(6), 1204–1215.
Dorman, M. F., Loizou, P. C., & Rainey, D. (1997). Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102(4), 2403–2411.
Drennan, W. R., & Rubinstein, J. T. (2008). Music perception in cochlear implant users and its relationship with psychophysical capabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 45(5), 779–789.
Eisenberg, L. S., Fisher, L. M., Johnson, K. C., Ganguly, D. H., Grace, T., Niparko, J. K., & CDaCI Investigative Team. (2016). Sentence recognition in quiet and noise by pediatric cochlear implant users: Relationships to spoken language. Otology & Neurotology, 37(2), e75–e81.
Ezzatian, P., Li, L., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., & Schneider, B. A. (2012). The effect of energetic and informational masking on the time-course of stream segregation: Evidence that streaming depends on vocal fine structure cues. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(7–8), 1056–1088.
Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1990). Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(4), 1725–1736.
Finke, M., Büchner, A., Ruigendijk, E., Meyer, M., & Sandmann, P. (2016). On the relationship between auditory cognition and speech intelligibility in cochlear implant users: An ERP study. Neuropsychologia, 87, 169–181.
Fitch, W. T., & Giedd, J. (1999). Morphology and development of the human vocal tract: A study using magnetic resonance imaging. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(3), 1511–1522.
Friesen, L. M., Shannon, R. V., Baskent, D., & Wang, X. (2001). Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110(2), 1150–1163.
Fu, Q.-J., Chinchilla, S., & Galvin, J. J. (2004). The role of spectral and temporal cues in voice gender discrimination by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 5(3), 253–260.
Fu, Q.-J., Chinchilla, S., Nogaki, G., & Galvin, J. J., III. (2005). Voice gender identification by cochlear implant users: The role of spectral and temporal resolution. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(3), 1711–1718.
Fu, Q.-J., Shannon, R., & Wang, X. (1998). Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: Acoustic and electric hearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104(6), 3586–3596.
Fuller, C. D., Gaudrain, E., Clarke, J. N., Galvin, J. J., Fu, Q.-J., Free, R. H., & Başkent, D. (2014). Gender categorization is abnormal in cochlear implant users. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 15(6), 1037–1048.
Gaudrain, E., & Başkent, D. (2015). Factors limiting vocal-tract length discrimination in cochlear implant simulations. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137(3), 1298–1308.
Gaudrain, E., & Başkent, D. (2018). Discrimination of voice pitch and vocal-tract length in cochlear implant users. Ear and Hearing, 39(2), 226–237.
Geers, A. E., & Hayes, H. (2011). Reading, writing, and phonological processing skills of adolescents with 10 or more years of cochlear implant experience. Ear and Hearing, 32(1), 49S–59S.
Gonzalez, J., & Oliver, J. C. (2005). Gender and speaker identification as a function of the number of channels in spectrally reduced speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(1), 461–470.
Han, J. H., Lee, J., & Lee, H. J. (2020). Noise-induced change of cortical temporal processing in cochlear implant users. Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology, 13(3), 241–248.
Hillenbrand, J. M., Houde, R. A., & Gayvert, R. T. (2006). Speech perception based on spectral peaks versus spectral shape. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(6), 4041–4054.
Johnson, C., & Goswami, U. (2010). Phonological awareness, vocabulary, and reading in deaf children with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(2), 237–261.
Kania, R. E., Hartl, D. M., Hans, S., Maeda, S., Vaissiere, J., & Brasnu, D. F. (2006). Fundamental frequency histograms measured by electroglottography during speech: A pilot study for standardization. Journal of Voice, 20(1), 18–24.
Kollmeier, B., Warzybok, A., Hochmuth, S., Zokoll, M. A., Uslar, V., Brand, T., & Wagener, K. C. (2015). The multilingual matrix test: Principles, applications, and comparison across languages: A review. International Journal of Audiology, 54(Suppl. 2), 3–16.
Kral, A. (2013). Auditory critical periods: A review from system's perspective. Neuroscience, 247, 117–133.
Kronenberger, W. G., Colson, B. G., Henning, S. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (2014). Executive functioning and speech-language skills following long-term use of cochlear implants. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19(4), 456–470.
Laneau, J., Wouters, J., & Moonen, M. (2004). Relative contributions of temporal and place pitch cues to fundamental frequency discrimination in cochlear implantees. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(6), 3606–3619.
Lenarz, T. (2017). Cochlear implant - State of the art. GMS Current Topic Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 16, Article Doc04.
Levin, M., Balberg, M., & Zaltz, Y. (2022). Cortical activation in response to speech differs between prelingually deafened cochlear implant users with good or poor speech-in-noise understanding: An fNIRS study. Applied Sciences, 12(23), Article 12063.
Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49(2), 467–477.
Liu, C., & Kewley-Port, D. (2004). Vowel formant discrimination for high-fidelity speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(2), 1224–1233.
Luo, X. (2016). Talker variability effects on vocal emotion recognition in acoustic and simulated electric hearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(6), EL497–EL503.
Mao, Y., & Xu, L. (2017). Lexical tone recognition in noise in normal-hearing children and prelingually deafened children with cochlear implants. International Journal of Audiology, 56(Suppl. 2), S23–S30.
Massida, Z., Marx, M., Belin, P., James, C., Fraysse, B., Barone, P., & Deguine, O. (2013). Gender categorization in cochlear implant users. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56(5), 1389–1401.
Meister, H., Fürsen, K., Streicher, B., Lang-Roth, R., & Walger, M. (2016). The use of voice cues for speaker gender recognition in cochlear implant recipients. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(3), 546–556.
Micheyl, C., Carlyon, R. P., Gutschalk, A., Melcher, J. R., Oxenham, A. J., Rauschecker, J. P., Tian, B., & Wilson, E. C. (2007). The role of auditory cortex in the formation of auditory streams. Hearing Research, 229(1–2), 116–131.
Moeller, M. P., Stille, L. J., Hughes, M. L., & Lusk, R. P. (2018). Perceived improvements and challenges following sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children and adults. Cochlear Implants International, 19(2), 72–87.
Moore, B. C. J. (2003). Coding of sounds in the auditory system and its relevance to signal processing and coding in cochlear implants. Otology & Neurotology, 24(2), 243–254.
Moulines, E., & Charpentier, F. (1990). Pitch synchronous waveform processing techniques for text to speech synthesis using diphones. Speech Communication, 9(5–6), 453–467.
Oxenham, A. J. (2008). Pitch perception and auditory stream segregation: Implications for hearing loss and cochlear implants. Trends in Amplification, 12(4), 316–331.
Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Zekveld, A., Sörqvist, P., Danielsson, H., Lyxell, B., Dahlström, O., Signoret, C., Stenfelt, S., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., & Rudner M. (2013). The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 7, Article 31.
Rubinstein, J. T. (2004). How cochlear implants encode speech. Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery, 12(5), 444–448.
Shannon, R. V. (1983). Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. I. Basic psychophysics. Hearing Research, 11(2), 157–189.
Sharma, S. D., Cushing, S. L., Papsin, B. C., & Gordon, K. A. (2020). Hearing and speech benefits of cochlear implantation in children: A review of the literature. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 133.
Skuk, V., & Schweinberger, S. (2014). Influences of fundamental frequency, formant frequencies, aperiodicity, and spectrum level on the perception of voice gender. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(1), 285–296.
Smith, D. R. R., & Patterson, R. D. (2005). The interaction of glottal-pulse rate and vocal-tract length in judgements of speaker size, sex, and age. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(5), 3177–3186.
Smith, D. R. R., Patterson, R. D., Turner, R., Kawahara, H., & Irino, T. (2005). The processing and perception of size information in speech sounds. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117(1), 305–318.
Smith, D. R. R., Walters, T. C., & Patterson, R. D. (2008). Discrimination of speaker sex and size when glottal-pulse rate and vocal-tract length are controlled. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(6), 3628–3639.
Snyder, J. S., & Alain, C. (2007). Toward a neurophysiological theory of auditory stream segregation. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 780–799.
Song, J. H., Skoe, E., Banai, K., & Kraus, N. (2011). Perception of speech in noise: Neural correlates. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(9), 2268–2279.
Souza, P., & Rosen, S. (2009). Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(2), 792–805.
Spehar, B., Goebel, S., & Tye-Murray, N. (2015). Effects of context type on lipreading and listening performance and implications for sentence processing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58(3), 1093–1102.
Stenfelt, S., & Rönnberg, J. (2009). The signal-cognition interface: Interactions between degraded auditory signals and cognitive processes. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50(5), 385–393.
Stickney, G. S., Zeng, F. G., Litovsky, R., & Assmann, P. (2004). Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(2), 1081–1091.
Stone, M. A., Füllgrabe, C., & Moore, B. C. J. (2008). Benefit of high-rate envelope cues in vocoder processing: Effect of number of channels and spectral region. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124(4), 2272–2282.
Tang, L., Thompson, C. B., Clark, J. H., Ceh, K. M., Yeagle, J. D., & Francis, H. W. (2017). Rehabilitation and psychosocial determinants of cochlear implant outcomes in older adults. Ear and Hearing, 38(6), 663–671.
Tokat, T., Müderris, T., Bozkurt, E. B., Ergun, U., Aysel, A., & Catli, T. (2021). Quality of life in older adults with cochlear implantation: Can it be equal to that of healthy older adults? Journal of Audiology & Otology, 25(3), 138–145.
Turner, R. E., Walters, T. C., Monaghan, J. J. M., & Patterson, R. D. (2009). A statistical, formant-pattern model for segregating vowel type and vocal-tract length in developmental formant data. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(4), 2374–2386.
Vestergaard, M. D., Fyson, N. R., & Patterson, R. D. (2009). The interaction of vocal characteristics and audibility in the recognition of concurrent syllables. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(2), 1114–1124.
Vongphoe, M., & Zeng, F. G. (2005). Speaker recognition with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(2), 1055–1061.
Wagner, A. E., Nagels, L., Toffanin, P., Opie J. M., & Başkent D. (2019). Individual variations in effort: Assessing pupillometry for the hearing impaired. Trends in Hearing, 23.
Whitmal, N. A., Poissant, S. F., Freyman, R. L., & Helfer, K. S. (2007). Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: Effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(4), 2376–2388.
Won, J. H., Drennan, W. R., & Rubinstein, J. T. (2007). Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 8(3), 384–392.
Xu, L. (2016). Temporal envelopes in sine-wave speech recognition. Proceeding in Interspeech 2016, 1682–1686.
Xu, L., & Pfingst, B. E. (2008). Spectral and temporal cues for speech recognition: Implications for auditory prostheses. Hearing Research, 242(1–2), 132–140.
Xu, L., Thompson, C. S., & Pfingst, B. E. (2005). Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117(5), 3255–3267.
Xu, L., Xi, X., Patton, A., Wang, X., Qi, B., & Johnson, L. (2021). A cross-language comparison of sentence recognition using American English and Mandarin Chinese HINT and AzBio sentences. Ear and Hearing, 42(2), 405–413.
Xu, L., & Zheng, Y. (2007). Spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(3), 1758–1764.
Zaltz, Y., Bugannim, Y., Zechoval, D., Kishon-Rabin, L., & Perez, R. (2020). Listening in noise remains a significant challenge for cochlear implant users: Evidence from early deafened and those with progressive hearing loss compared to peers with normal hearing. Clinical Medicine, 9(5).
Zaltz, Y., Goldsworthy, R. L., Eisenberg, L. S., & Kishon-Rabin, L. (2020). Children with normal hearing are efficient users of fundamental frequency and vocal tract length cues for voice discrimination. Ear and Hearing, 41(1), 182–193.
Zaltz, Y., Goldsworthy, R. L., Kishon-Rabin, L., & Eisenberg, L. S. (2018). Voice discrimination by adults with cochlear implants: The benefits of early implantation for vocal-tract length perception. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 19(2), 193–209.
Zaltz, Y., & Kishon-Rabin, L. (2022). Difficulties experienced by older listeners in utilizing voice cues for speaker discrimination. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
Zeng, F. G. (2002). Temporal pitch in electric hearing. Hearing Research, 174(1–2), 101–106.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume 66 • Number 12 • 11 December 2023
Pages: 5169-5186
PubMed: 37992412
Copyright
Copyright © 2023 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
History
- Received: Jan 10, 2023
- Revised: Jul 19, 2023
- Accepted: Sep 24, 2023
- Published online: Nov 22, 2023
- Published in issue: Dec 11, 2023
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Metrics
View all metricsCitations
Download article citation data for:
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
Citing Literature
- Yael Zaltz, The Impact of Trained Conditions on the Generalization of Learning Gains Following Voice Discrimination Training, Trends in Hearing, 10.1177/23312165241275895, 28, (2024).
View Options
Sign In Options
ASHA member? If so, log in with your ASHA website credentials for full access.
Member Login