Contribution of Temporal Fine Structure Cues to Concurrent Vowel Identification and Perception of Zebra Speech

Serrao, Delora Samantha; Theruvan, Nikhitha; Fathima, Hasna; Pitchaimuthu, Arivudai Nambi

doi:10.1055/s-0044-1785456

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Research • Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 28 (3) • 2024 • https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1785456 copy

Contribution of Temporal Fine Structure Cues to Concurrent Vowel Identification and Perception of Zebra Speech

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Introduction

The limited access to temporal fine structure (TFS) cues is a reason for reduced speech-in-noise recognition in cochlear implant (CI) users. The CI signal processing schemes like electroacoustic stimulation (EAS) and fine structure processing (FSP) encode TFS in the low frequency whereas theoretical strategies such as frequency amplitude modulation encoder (FAME) encode TFS in all the bands.

Objective

The present study compared the effect of simulated CI signal processing schemes that either encode no TFS, TFS information in all bands, or TFS only in low-frequency bands on concurrent vowel identification (CVI) and Zebra speech perception (ZSP).

Methods

Temporal fine structure information was systematically manipulated using a 30-band sine-wave (SV) vocoder. The TFS was either absent (SV) or presented in all the bands as frequency modulations simulating the FAME algorithm or only in bands below 525 Hz to simulate EAS. Concurrent vowel identification and ZSP were measured under each condition in 15 adults with normal hearing.

Results

The CVI scores did not differ between the 3 schemes (F ^{(2, 28)} = 0.62, p = 0.55, η²_p = 0.04). The effect of encoding TFS was observed for ZSP (F ^{(2, 28)} = 5.73, p = 0.008, η²_p = 0.29). Perception of Zebra speech was significantly better with EAS and FAME than with SV. There was no significant difference in ZSP scores obtained with EAS and FAME (p = 1.00)

Conclusion

For ZSP, the TFS cues from FAME and EAS resulted in equivalent improvements in performance compared to the SV scheme. The presence or absence of TFS did not affect the CVI scores.

Keywords
cochlear implant; speech perception; hearing loss; psychoacoustics; auditory processing; algorithm

	/a/	/e/	/i/	/o/	/u/
F1	840	457	362	480	439
F2	1,309	1,893	1,920	882	814
F3	2,119	2,232	2,265	1,647	1,894
F4	2,576	2,607	2,594	3,219	3,387

Processing scheme	Semitone difference	/e/		/i/		/o/		/u/
Processing scheme	Semitone difference	t	p	t	p	t	p	t	p
EAS	0	3.87^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.002	4.22^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.001	5.02^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	4.25^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.002
	1	3.63^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.003	3.75^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.002	2.60	0.021	0.56	0.59
	2	5.65^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	5.24^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	4.34^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	2.45	0.028
	4	4.65^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	5.10^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	5.36^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	5.61^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000
FAME	0	3.35^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.005	4.44^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.001	4.24^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.001	4.07^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.001
	1	3.99^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.001	5.36^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	3.38^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.005	4.73^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000
	2	5.37^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	5.27^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	5.12^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	4.03^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.001
	4	4.76^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	4.83^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	5.72^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	6.40^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.00
SINE-WAVE VOCODER	0	4.37^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.001	3.98^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.001	6.61^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	4.17^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.001
	1	3.43^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.004	4.06^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.001	2.41	0.030	1.34	0.200
	2	4.99^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	6.33^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	5.11^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	2.70^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.017
	4	4.54^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	4.59^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	7.39^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000	5.46^* *‘’** indicates that, d-prime score was significantly different from 0. P-level of 0.05 was adjusted using Bonferroni-Holm corrections.	0.000

	/e/	/i/	/o/	/u/
Place	Back	Back	Front	Front
Lip rounding	Unrounded	Unrounded	Rounded	Rounded
Tongue height	Low	High	Low	High

Processing	Semitone difference	Place/Lip rounding		Height
Processing	Semitone difference	Mean	Standard deviation	Mean	Standard deviation
EAS	0	0.54	0.31	0.19	0.15
	1	0.59	0.37	0.34	0.28
	2	0.66	0.33	0.37	0.30
	4	0.68	0.34	0.31	0.23
FAME	0	0.68	0.33	0.32	0.17
	1	0.66	0.33	0.31	0.23
	2	0.72	0.30	0.41	0.23
	4	0.72	0.32	0.28	0.20
Sine-wave vocoder	0	0.67	0.25	0.23	0.24
	1	0.64	0.30	0.26	0.22
	2	0.66	0.28	0.36	0.29
	4	0.69	0.29	0.27	0.23

Fundação Otorrinolaringologia Rua Artur de Azevedo 46, Zip code 05404-000,, São Paulo/SP, Brazil, Phone: +55 11 3062 4097, E-mail: iaorl@iaorl.org - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: iaorl@iaorl.org

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Address for correspondence Arivudai Nambi Pitchaimuthu, PhD, Department of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India (e-mail: arivudainambi11@gmail.com).

	Mean	Standard deviation
EAS	22.53	8.63
FAME	23.93	7.28
SV	17.87	8.62