Effects of F1–F2 Frequency Spacing on Spectral Integration in Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation
Publication: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume 68, Number 2
Pages 792-807
Abstract
Purpose:
The aim of this study was to measure the effects of frequency spacing (i.e., F2 minus F1) on spectral integration for vowel perception in simulated bilateral electric–acoustic stimulation (BiEAS), electric–acoustic stimulation (EAS), and bimodal hearing.
Method:
Twenty listeners with typical hearing participated in synthetic vowel recognition. Four vowels were used with varying frequency spacings (/ͻ/: 270 Hz, /ʊ/: 653 Hz, /æ/: 1040 Hz, and /I/: 1607 Hz). F1 was acoustically simulated with a band-pass filtering, while F2 was electrically simulated using an eight-channel sine wave vocoder with matched input and output frequency range. Vowel recognition was measured in five listening conditions: BiEAS (F1 and F2 in both ears), EAS (F1 and F2 in the left ear), bimodal (F1 and F2 in opposite ears), cochlear implant alone (F2 alone in the left ear), and hearing aid alone (F1 alone in the left ear).
Results:
In EAS, spectral integration was significantly better at a 270-Hz spacing, while in bimodal hearing, spectral integration was significantly poorer at a 1607-Hz frequency compared to other frequency spacings. BiEAS conditions offered the best spectral integration, regardless of frequency spacing. Vowel confusion remained consistent and below chance level across the first three listening conditions. Bimodal interference occurred for the /I/ vowel when the cochlear implant ear perceives the dominant cue and the hearing aid ear perceives the nondominant cue. The F2 place cue is transmitted significantly better than the F1 height cue in BiEAS, EAS, and bimodal conditions.
Conclusions:
EAS and bimodal hearing integrates narrower frequency ranges better than wider spacings. EAS hearing provided greater outcomes over bimodal hearing, suggesting that within-ear (EAS) integration is more effective than across-ear (bimodal) integration. Bimodal interference may be a factor for variability in bimodal performance. Cautious interpretation and further research with real EAS and bimodal users are suggested to validate and extend these findings.
Supplemental Material:
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Ainsworth, W. A., & Millar, J. B. (1972). The effect of relative formant amplitude on the perceived identity of synthetic vowels. Language and Speech, 15(4), 328–341.
Balkenhol, T., Wallhäusser-Franke, E., Rotter, N., & Servais, J. J. (2020). Changes in speech-related brain activity during adaptation to electro-acoustic hearing. Frontiers in Neurology, 11, Article 161.
Bedrov, Y. A., Chistovich, L., & Sheikin, R. (1978). Frequency location of the “center of gravity” of formants as a useful feature in vowel perception. Soviet Physics Acoustics, 24, 275–278.
Bunnell, H. (1999). Simplified Vowel Synthesis Interface [Computer software and manual]. https://www.asel.udel.edu/speech/tutorials/synthesis/vowels.html
Chistovich, L. A. (1985). Central auditory processing of peripheral vowel spectra. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77(3), 789–805.
Chistovich, L. A., Sheikin, R. L., & Lublinskaja, V. V. (1979). ‘Centers of gravity’ and the spectral peaks as the determinants of vowel quality. In B. Lindblom & S. Ohman (Eds.), Frontiers of speech communication research (pp. 143–158). Academic Press.
Cox, R. M. (1995). Using loudness data for hearing aid selection: The IHAFF approach. Hearing Journal, 48(2), 10–44.
Crew, J. D., Galvin, J. J., III, Landsberger, D. M., & Fu, Q.-J. (2015). Contributions of electric and acoustic hearing to bimodal speech and music perception. PLOS ONE, 10(3), Article e0120279.
Dillon, M. T., Buss, E., Rooth, M. A., King, E. R., Pillsbury, H. C., & Brown, K. D. (2019). Low-frequency pitch perception in cochlear implant recipients with normal hearing in the contralateral ear. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62(8), 2860–2871.
Dillon, M. T., Canfarotta, M. W., Buss, E., Hopfinger, J., & O'Connell, B. P. (2021). Effectiveness of place-based mapping in electric–acoustic stimulation devices. Otology & Neurotology, 42(1), 197–202.
Dorman, M. F., & Gifford, R. H. (2010). Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition. International Journal of Audiology, 49(12), 912–919.
Dorman, M. F., Loizou, P. C., & Rainey, D. (1997a). 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.
Dorman, M. F., Loizou, P. C., & Rainey, D. (1997b). Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102(5), 2993–2996.
Dubno, J. R., & Dorman, M. F. (1987). Effects of spectral flattening on vowel identification. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82(5), 1503–1511.
Fu, Q.-J., Galvin, J. J., III, & Wang, X. (2017a). Effect of carrier bandwidth on integration of simulations of acoustic and electric hearing within or across ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142(6), EL561–EL566.
Fu, Q.-J., Galvin, J. J., III, & Wang, X. (2017b). Integration of acoustic and electric hearing is better in the same ear than across ears. Scientific Reports, 7(1), Article 12500.
Gifford, R. H., Davis, T. J., Sunderhaus, L. W., Menapace, C., Buck, B., Crosson, J., O'Neill, L., Beiter, A., & Segel, P. (2017). Combined electric and acoustic stimulation with hearing preservation: Effect of cochlear implant low-frequency cutoff on speech understanding and perceived listening difficulty. Ear and Hearing, 38(5), 539–553.
Grant, K. W., Tufts, J. B., & Greenberg, S. (2007). Integration efficiency for speech perception within and across sensory modalities by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired individuals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(2), 1164–1176.
Greene, B. G., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1986). Perception of synthetic speech produced automatically by rule: Intelligibility of eight text-to-speech systems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 18, 100–107. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201008
Greenwood, D. D. (1990). A cochlear frequency–position function for several species—29 years later. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87(6), 2592–2605.
Guérit, F., Santurette, S., Chalupper, J., & Dau, T. (2014). Investigating interaural frequency–place mismatches via bimodal vowel integration. Trends in Hearing, 18, Article 2331216514560590.
Hartling, C. L., Fowler, J. R., Stark, G. N., Glickman, B., Eddolls, M., Oh, Y., Ramsey, K., & Reiss, L. A. J. (2020). Binaural pitch fusion in children with normal hearing, hearing aids, and cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 41(6), 1545–1559.
Hawks, J. W., Fourakis, M. S., Skinner, M. W., Holden, T. A., & Holden, L. K. (1997). Effects of formant bandwidth on the identification of synthetic vowels by cochlear implant recipients. Ear and Hearing, 18(6), 479–487.
Healy, E. W., & Bacon, S. P. (2007). Effect of spectral frequency range and separation on the perception of asynchronous speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(3), 1691–1700.
Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(5), 3099–3111.
Hillenbrand, J. M., Clark, M. J., & Houde, R. A. (2000). Some effects of duration on vowel recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108(6), 3013–3022.
Kiefer, J., Pok, M., Adunka, O., Stürzebecher, E., Baumgartner, W., Schmidt, M., Tillein, J., Ye, Q., & Gstoettner, W. (2005). Combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: Results of a clinical study. Audiology & Neuro-Otology, 10(3), 134–144.
Klatt, D. H. (1980). Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67(3), 971–995.
Kleine Punte, A., Vermeire, K., & Van de Heyning, P. (2009). Bilateral electric acoustic stimulation: A comparison of partial and deep cochlear electrode insertion: A longitudinal case study. In P. Van de Heyning & A. Kleine Punte (Eds.), Cochlear implants and hearing preservation (Vol. 67). S. Karger AG.
Kong, Y.-Y., & Braida, L. D. (2011). Cross-frequency integration for consonant and vowel identification in bimodal hearing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54(3), 959–980.
Kong, Y.-Y., Stickney, G. S., & Zeng, F.-G. (2005). Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117(3), 1351–1361.
Lee, S. M., & Mendel, L. L. (2016). Effect of the number of maxima and stimulation rate on phoneme perception patterns using cochlear implant simulation. Clinical Archives of Communication Disorders, 1(1), 87–100.
Li, F., & Allen, J. B. (2011). Manipulation of consonants in natural speech. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 19(3), 496–504.
Li, F., Menon, A., & Allen, J. B. (2010). A psychoacoustic method to find the perceptual cues of stop consonants in natural speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127(4), 2599–2610.
Li, F., Trevino, A., Menon, A., & Allen, J. B. (2012). A psychoacoustic method for studying the necessary and sufficient perceptual cues of American English fricative consonants in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132(4), 2663–2675.
Liu, C., Jin, S.-H., & Chen, C.-T. (2014). Durations of American English vowels by native and non-native speakers: Acoustic analyses and perceptual effects. Language and Speech, 57(Pt. 2), 238–253.
McPherson, D. L., & Starr, A. (1993). Binaural interaction in auditory evoked potentials: Brainstem, middle- and long-latency components. Hearing Research, 66(1), 91–98.
Mok, M., Grayden, D., Dowell, R. C., & Lawrence, D. (2006). Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2), 338–351.
Monahan, P. J., & Idsardi, W. J. (2010). Auditory sensitivity to formant ratios: Toward an account of vowel normalization. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(6), 808–839.
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.
Munson, B., Donaldson, G. S., Allen, S. L., Collison, E. A., & Nelson, D. A. (2003). Patterns of phoneme perception errors by listeners with cochlear implants as a function of overall speech perception ability. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(2), 925–935.
Oh, Y., & Reiss, L. A. J. (2017). Binaural pitch fusion: Pitch averaging and dominance in hearing-impaired listeners with broad fusion. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142(2), 780–791.
Oh, Y., & Reiss, L. A. J. (2020). Binaural pitch fusion: Binaural pitch averaging in cochlear implant users with broad binaural fusion. Ear and Hearing, 41(6), 1450–1460.
Peterson, G. E., & Barney, H. L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24(2), 175–184.
Puttabasappa, M., Rajanna, M., Jaisinghani, P., & Shukla, S. (2017). Auditory P300 in typical individuals: Age and gender effect. International Journal of Health Sciences and Research, 7, 2249–9571.
Reiss, L. A. J., Eggleston, J. L., Walker, E. P., & Oh, Y. (2016). Two ears are not always better than one: Mandatory vowel fusion across spectrally mismatched ears in hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 17(4), 341–356.
Reiss, L. A. J., Ito, R. A., Eggleston, J. L., & Wozny, D. R. (2014). Abnormal binaural spectral integration in cochlear implant users. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 15(2), 235–248.
Rosen, S., Faulkner, A., & Wilkinson, L. (1999). Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: Implications for cochlear implants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(6), 3629–3636.
Sato, M., Baumhoff, P., Tillein, J., & Kral, A. (2017). Physiological mechanisms in combined electric–acoustic stimulation. Otology & Neurotology, 38(8), e215–e223.
Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F. G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270(5234), 303–304.
Sheffield, B. M., & Zeng, F.-G. (2012). The relative phonetic contributions of a cochlear implant and residual acoustic hearing to bimodal speech perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(1), 518–530.
Sheffield, S. W., Jahn, K., & Gifford, R. H. (2015). Preserved acoustic hearing in cochlear implantation improves speech perception. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 26(2), 145–154.
Skinner, M. W., Fourakis, M. S., Holden, T. A., Holden, L. K., & Demorest, M. E. (1996). Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the multipeak (MPEAK) and spectral peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies. I. Vowels. Ear and Hearing, 17(3), 182–197.
Spehar, B. P., Tye-Murray, N., & Sommers, M. S. (2008). Intra- versus intermodal integration in young and older adults. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(5), 2858–2866.
Stronks, H. C., Versnel, H., Prijs, V. F., & Klis, S. F. L. (2010). Suppression of the acoustically evoked auditory-nerve response by electrical stimulation in the cochlea of the guinea pig. Hearing Research, 259(1–2), 64–74.
Tarabichi, O., Jensen, M., & Hansen, M. R. (2021). Advances in hearing preservation in cochlear implant surgery. Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery, 29(5), 385–390. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0000000000000742
Tielen, M. T. (1989). Fundamental frequency characteristics of middle aged men and women. In F. J. Koopmans-van Beinum (Ed.), Proceedings from the Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam (pp. 45–58). Institute of Phonetic Sciences.
Tillein, J., Hartmann, R., & Kral, A. (2015). Electric–acoustic interactions in the hearing cochlea: Single fiber recordings. Hearing Research, 322, 112–126.
Turner, C. W., Souza, P. E., & Forget, L. N. (1995). Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(4), 2568–2576.
Välimaa, T. T., Sorri, M. J., Laitakari, J., Sivonen, V., & Muhli, A. (2011). Vowel confusion patterns in adults during initial 4 years of implant use. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 25(2), 121–144.
van Wieringen, A., & Wouters, J. (1999). Natural vowel and consonant recognition by Laura cochlear implantees. Ear and Hearing, 20(2), 89–103.
Villard, S., & Kidd, G., Jr. (2021). Speech intelligibility and talker gender classification with noise-vocoded and tone-vocoded speech. JASA Express Letters, 1(9), Article 094401.
Walsh, T., & Parker, F. (1984). A review of the vocalic cues to [± voice] in post-vocalic stops in English. Journal of Phonetics, 12(3), 207–218.
Weber, A., & Smits, R. (2003). Consonant and vowel confusion patterns by American English listeners. In M. J. Solé, D. Recasens, & J. Romero (Eds.), 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1437–1440). International Phonetic Association. https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2003/papers/p15_1437.pdf [PDF]
Willis, S., Moore, B. C. J., Galvin, J. J., III, & Fu, Q.-J. (2020). Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears. PLOS ONE, 15(10), Article e0240752.
Xu, Q., Jacewicz, E., Feth, L. L., & Krishnamurthy, A. K. (2004). Bandwidth of spectral resolution for two-formant synthetic vowels and two-tone complex signals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(4), 1653–1664.
Yoon, Y.-S., & Drew, C. (2022). Effects of the intensified frequency and time ranges on consonant enhancement in bilateral cochlear implant and hearing aid users. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 918914.
Yoon, Y.-S., Li, Y., & Fu, Q.-J. (2012). Speech recognition and acoustic features in combined electric and acoustic stimulation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55(1), 105–124.
Yoon, Y.-S., Shin, Y.-R., Gho, J.-S., & Fu, Q.-J. (2015). Bimodal benefit depends on the performance difference between a cochlear implant and a hearing aid. Cochlear Implants International, 16(3), 159–167.
Yoon, Y.-S., & Straw, S. (2024). Interactions between slopes of residual hearing and frequency maps in simulated bimodal and electric–acoustic stimulation hearing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 67(1), 282–295.
Yoon, Y.-S., Whitaker, G., & Lee, Y. S. (2021). Effects of the configuration of hearing loss on consonant perception between simulated bimodal and electric acoustic stimulation hearing. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 32(8), 521–527.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume 68 • Number 2 • February 2025
Pages: 792-807
PubMed: 39787532
Copyright
Copyright © 2025 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
History
- Received: Apr 27, 2024
- Revised: Aug 20, 2024
- Accepted: Oct 25, 2024
- Published online: Jan 9, 2025
- Published in issue: Feb 4, 2025
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.
View Options
Sign In Options
ASHA member? If so, log in with your ASHA website credentials for full access.
Member Login