Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intonational cues for speech perception in noise by cochlear implant listeners

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The objectives of this study are to evaluate cochlear implant (CI) listeners’ ability to infer low frequency (LF) pitch information from temporal fine structure (TFS) cues and to gain insight into its effects on speech perception, especially in the presence of a fluctuating background noise. Pitch perception assessment using linguistic stimuli is believed to better reflect the role of pitch in communicatively realistic situations.

Methods

The low-pass-filtered sentence intonation (SI-LPF) test based on linguistic stimuli marked by intonation changes is used to estimate a difference limen for discrimination of LF pitch changes in adult CI listeners (N = 17 ears). Speech perception in the presence of noise is assessed using the sentence test with adaptive randomized roving level (STARR), where everyday sentences are presented at low, medium, and high levels in a fluctuating background noise. SI-LPF correlations with STARR are compared to those with sentence recognition tests presented in quiet (SRQ) and in noise, using fixed signal-to-noise ratio (SNRs at +10 and +5 dB).

Results

SI-LPF findings show significant positive correlations with STARR performance (rs = 0.63, p = 0.007), whilst the associations with SRQ (rs = − 0.37, p = 0.149), SNR + 10 (rs = − 0.24, p = 0.345), and SNR + 5 (rs = − 0.14, p = 0.587) are not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Present findings reflecting considerably stronger correlations than previous studies using non-linguistic stimuli, in particular for speech perception with roving-level adaptive test method (STARR) highlight the effects of LF pitch perception and TFS sensitivity on challenging everyday situations, where CI users listen to speakers with varying levels in a fluctuating background.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rosen S (1992) Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 336:367–373. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1992.0070

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Baer T, Moore BC (1994) Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am 95:2277–2280. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.408640

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Moore BJC (2008) The role of temporal fine structure processing in pitch perception, masking and speech perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired people. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 9:399–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-008-0143-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Smith Z, Delgutte B, Oxenham AJ (2002) Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature 416:87–90

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen F, Zhang YT (2008) A novel temporal fine structure-based speech synthesis model for cochlear implant. Signal Process 88:2693–2699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Drennan WR, Longnion JK, Ruffin C et al (2008) Discrimination of Schroeder-phase harmonic complexes by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 9:138–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dincer D’Alessandro H, Ballantyne D, Boyle PJ, De Seta E, DeVincentiis M, Mancini P (2018) Temporal fine structure processing, pitch, and speech perception in adult cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear 39:679–686. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sucher CM, McDermott HJ (2007) Pitch ranking of complex tones by normally hearing subjects and cochlear implant users. Hear Res 230:80–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Looi V, Gfeller K, Driscoll V (2012) Music appreciation and training for cochlear implant recipients: a review. Semin Hear 33:307–334

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Dincer D’Alessandro H, Filipo R, Ballantyne D, Attanasio G, Bosco E, Nicastri M, Mancini P (2015) Low-frequency pitch perception in children with cochlear implants in comparison to normal hearing peers. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272:3115–3122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-014-3313-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dincer D’Alessandro H, Mancini P (2019) Perception of lexical stress cued by low-frequency pitch and insights into speech perception in noise for cochlear implant users and normal hearing adults. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 276:2673–2680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schauwers K, Coene M, Heeren W, Del Bo L, Pascu A, Vaerenberg B, Govaerts PJ (2012) Perception of pitch changes in hearing impaired adults with aided and unaided hearing loss. J Hear Sci 2:OA25–34.

  13. Heeren W, Coene M, Vaerenberg B, Avram A, Cardinaletti A, Del Bo L, Pascu A, Volpato F, Govaerts PJ (2012) Development of A§E test battery for assessment of pitch perception in speech. Cochlear Implants Intl 13:206–219. https://doi.org/10.1179/1754762811Y.0000000035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pierrehumbert JB (1980) The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Institute of Technology, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  15. Green T, Faulkner A, Rosen S, Macharey O (2005) Enhancement of temporal periodicity cues in cochlear implants: effects on prosodic perception and vowel identification. J Acoust Soc Am 118:375–385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dincer D’Alessandro H, Ballantyne D, De Seta E, Musacchio A, Mancini P (2016) Adaptation of the STARR test for adult Italian population: A speech test for a realistic estimate in real-life listening conditions. Int J Audiol 55:262–267. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2015.1124296

  17. Boyle PJ, Nunn TB, O’Connor AF, Moore BCJ (2013) STARR: A speech test for evaluation of the effectiveness of auditory prostheses under realistic conditions. Ear Hear 34:203–212. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e31826a8e82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dincer D’Alessandro H, Boyle PJ, Ballantyne D, De Vincentiis M, Mancini P (2018) The role of speech rate for Italian-speaking cochlear implant users: insights for everyday speech perception. Int J Audiol 57:851–857. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2018.1498139

  19. Boyle PJ, Büchner A, Stone MA, Lenarz T, Moore BC (2009) Comparison of dual-time-constant and fast-acting automatic gain control (AGC) systems in cochlear implants. Int J Audiol 48:211–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hauman S, Lenarz T, Büchner A (2010) Speech perception with cochlear implants as measured using a roving-level adaptive test method. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 72:312–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cutugno F, Prosser S, Turrini M (2000) Audiometria Vocale, vol IV. Padova, GN Resound Italia

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kuo Y-C, Rosen S, Faulkner A (2008) Acoustic cues to tonal contrasts in Mandarin: implications for cochlear implantation. J Acoust Soc Am 123:2815–2824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gifford R, Shallop J, Peterson A (2008) Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol Neurootol 13:193–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lenarz M, Sönmez H, Joseph G, Büchner A, Lenarz T (2012) Long-Term Performance of Cochlear Implants in Postlingually Deafened Adults. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 147:112–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bierer JA, Spindler E, Bierer SM, Wright R (2016) An Examination of Sources of Variability Across the Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant Test in Cochlear Implant Listeners. Trends Hear 20:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vaerenberg B, Péan V, Lesbros G, De Ceulaer G, Schauwers K, Daemers K, Gnansia D, Govaerts PJ (2013) Combined electric and acoustic performance with Zebra® speech processor: speech reception, place and temporal coding evaluation. Cochlear Implants Intl 14:150–157. https://doi.org/10.1179/1754762812Y.0000000008

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sense Organs, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale dell’Università 31, 00161, Rome, Italy

    Hilal Dincer D’Alessandro & Patrizia Mancini

Authors
  1. Hilal Dincer D’Alessandro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrizia Mancini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hilal Dincer D’Alessandro.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was obtained by the Local Ethical Committee. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Written consent was taken from all participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dincer D’Alessandro, H., Mancini, P. Intonational cues for speech perception in noise by cochlear implant listeners. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277, 3315–3321 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06055-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06055-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation