Effects of F1-F2 Frequency Spacing on Spectral Integration in Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation.

IF 2.2 2区医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY

Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research Pub Date : 2025-02-04 Epub Date: 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00273

Priyanka Jaisinghani, Yang-Soo Yoon

{"title":"Effects of F1-F2 Frequency Spacing on Spectral Integration in Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation.","authors":"Priyanka Jaisinghani, Yang-Soo Yoon","doi":"10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28127249.","PeriodicalId":51254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","volume":" ","pages":"792-807"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00273","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

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: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28127249.

查看原文本刊更多论文

F1-F2频率间隔对电声联合激励频谱积分的影响

目的：本研究的目的是测量频率间隔（即F2减去F1）对模拟双侧电声刺激（BiEAS）、电声刺激（EAS）和双峰听力中元音感知频谱积分的影响。方法：20名听力正常的听者参与合成元音识别。四个元音以不同的频率间隔使用（/ / /:270 Hz, / / /: 653 Hz， /æ/: 1040 Hz和/I/: 1607 Hz）。F1采用带通滤波进行声学模拟，而F2采用匹配输入和输出频率范围的八通道正弦波声码器进行电气模拟。在BiEAS（双耳F1和F2）、EAS（左耳F1和F2）、双峰（对耳F1和F2）、单独人工耳蜗（左耳F2）和单独助听器（左耳F1）五种听力条件下测量元音识别。结果：在EAS中，270-Hz频率间隔的频谱积分明显更好，而在双峰听力中，1607-Hz频率的频谱积分明显比其他频率间隔差。无论频率间隔如何，BiEAS条件都提供了最佳的频谱积分。在前三种听力条件下，元音混淆保持一致，低于偶然水平。当人工耳蜗耳感知显性线索和助听器耳感知非显性线索时，/I/元音出现双峰干扰。在BiEAS、EAS和双峰条件下，F2位置线索的传输显著优于F1高度线索。结论：EAS与双峰听力相比，更窄的频率范围比更宽的间隔更能整合。EAS听力比双峰听力提供了更好的结果，这表明耳内（EAS）整合比跨耳（双峰）整合更有效。双峰干扰可能是导致双峰性能变异性的一个因素。建议谨慎解释并进一步研究真实的EAS和双峰用户，以验证和扩展这些发现。补充资料：https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28127249。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION

CiteScore

4.10

自引率

19.20%

发文量

538

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Mission: JSLHR publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on the normal and disordered processes in speech, language, hearing, and related areas such as cognition, oral-motor function, and swallowing. The journal is an international outlet for both basic research on communication processes and clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, and management of communication disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. JSLHR seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work. Scope: The broad field of communication sciences and disorders, including speech production and perception; anatomy and physiology of speech and voice; genetics, biomechanics, and other basic sciences pertaining to human communication; mastication and swallowing; speech disorders; voice disorders; development of speech, language, or hearing in children; normal language processes; language disorders; disorders of hearing and balance; psychoacoustics; and anatomy and physiology of hearing.