{"title":"时间精细结构线索对同时元音识别和斑马语音感知的贡献","authors":"Delora Samantha Serrao, Nikhitha Theruvan, Hasna Fathima, Arivudai Nambi Pitchaimuthu","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1785456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction</b> 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. <b>Objective</b> 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). <b>Methods</b> 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. <b>Results</b> The CVI scores did not differ between the 3 schemes (F <sup>(2, 28)</sup> = 0.62, <i>p</i> = 0.55, η <sup>2</sup> <sub>p </sub> = 0.04). The effect of encoding TFS was observed for ZSP (F <sup>(2, 28)</sup> = 5.73, <i>p</i> = 0.008, η <sup>2</sup> <sub>p </sub> = 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 ( <i>p</i> = 1.00) <b>Conclusion</b> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":13731,"journal":{"name":"International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11226255/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contribution of Temporal Fine Structure Cues to Concurrent Vowel Identification and Perception of Zebra Speech.\",\"authors\":\"Delora Samantha Serrao, Nikhitha Theruvan, Hasna Fathima, Arivudai Nambi Pitchaimuthu\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0044-1785456\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction</b> 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. <b>Objective</b> 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). <b>Methods</b> 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. <b>Results</b> The CVI scores did not differ between the 3 schemes (F <sup>(2, 28)</sup> = 0.62, <i>p</i> = 0.55, η <sup>2</sup> <sub>p </sub> = 0.04). The effect of encoding TFS was observed for ZSP (F <sup>(2, 28)</sup> = 5.73, <i>p</i> = 0.008, η <sup>2</sup> <sub>p </sub> = 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 ( <i>p</i> = 1.00) <b>Conclusion</b> 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13731,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11226255/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1785456\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1785456","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导言:人工耳蜗(CI)用户对时间精细结构(TFS)线索的获取能力有限,这是导致噪声中语音识别能力下降的一个原因。电声刺激(EAS)和精细结构处理(FSP)等 CI 信号处理方案在低频对 TFS 进行编码,而频率振幅调制编码器(FAME)等理论策略则在所有频段对 TFS 进行编码。本研究比较了模拟 CI 信号处理方案对并发元音识别(CVI)和斑马语音感知(ZSP)的影响,这些方案要么不编码 TFS,要么在所有频段编码 TFS 信息,要么只在低频段编码 TFS。方法 使用 30 波段正弦波 (SV) 声码器系统地处理时间精细结构信息。TFS要么不存在(SV),要么以频率调制的形式出现在所有频段,模拟 FAME 算法,要么只出现在低于 525 Hz 的频段,模拟 EAS。在每种条件下,对 15 名听力正常的成年人同时进行元音识别和 ZSP 测量。结果 3 种方案的 CVI 分数没有差异(F (2, 28) = 0.62, p = 0.55, η 2 p = 0.04)。编码 TFS 对 ZSP 有影响 (F (2, 28) = 5.73, p = 0.008, η 2 p = 0.29)。EAS 和 FAME 对斑马语音的感知明显优于 SV。结论 对于 ZSP,FAME 和 EAS 的 TFS 提示与 SV 方案相比具有同等的改善效果。有无 TFS 并不影响 CVI 分数。
Contribution of Temporal Fine Structure Cues to Concurrent Vowel Identification and Perception of Zebra Speech.
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, η 2p = 0.04). The effect of encoding TFS was observed for ZSP (F (2, 28) = 5.73, p = 0.008, η 2p = 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.