Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perception of lexical stress cued by low-frequency pitch and insights into speech perception in noise for cochlear implant users and normal hearing adults

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

Abstract

Purpose

Cochlear implant (CI) users show great difficulty for understanding speech in noise and this fact may partly stem from their poor low-frequency (LF) pitch perception and temporal fine structure (TFS) processing. Clinical assessment of pitch perception is usually based on non-speech tasks. However, linguistically relevant contexts such as lexical stress may better reflect the role of pitch in speech perception, especially for everyday speech where background noise is inevitable. Hence, the study aimed to assess perception of lexical stress cued by LF pitch and TFS cues for CI and normal hearing (NH) listeners, and to investigate relationships with speech perception in noise.

Methods

The low-pass-filtered Word Stress Pattern (WSP-LPF) test was used to evaluate perception of lexical stress cued by LF pitch. Speech perception was assessed with the sentence test with adaptive randomized roving level (STARR) test which presented everyday sentences at low, medium, and high levels in a fluctuating noise to estimate a Speech Reception Threshold. This new test intended to give a realistic estimate for real-world listening.

Results

Median WSP-LPF scores in NH (N = 18) and CI listeners (N = 18) were 12.0 Hz and 67.0 Hz, respectively. The corresponding STARR scores were − 9.1 dB and 17.3 dB. Group differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Analysis showed significant positive correlations for NH (rs = 0.50) and CI listeners (rs = 0.60).

Conclusions

Present findings reveal stronger correlations than previous studies using non-speech materials, supporting that CI listeners’ poor speech perception in noise might be strongly associated with their inability for LF pitch perception and TFS processing.

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

Adapted from the Eargroup, Antwerp-Deurne, Belgium

Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Geers AE, Sedey AL (2011) Language and verbal reasoning skills in adolescents with 10 or more years of cochlear implant experience. Ear Hear 32:39S–48S. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181fa41dc

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Niparko JK, Tobey EA, Thal DJ, Eisenberg LS, Wang NY, Quittner AL et al (2010) Spoken language development in children following cochlear implantation. JAMA 303:1498–1506. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.451

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nicastri M, Filipo R, Ruoppolo G, Viccaro M, Dincer H, Guerzoni L, Cuda D, Bosco E, Prosperini L, Mancini P (2014) Inferences and metaphoric comprehension in unilaterally implanted children with adequate formal oral language performance. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 78:821–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.02.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mancini P, Dincer D’Alessandro H, Guerzoni L, Cuda D, Ruoppolo G, Musacchio A, Di Mario A, De Seta E, Bosco E, Nicastri M (2015) Adequate formal language performance in unilateral cochlear implanted children: Is it indicative of complete recovery in all linguistic domains? Insights from referential communication. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 79:598–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.02.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wilson BS, Dorman MF (2008) Cochlear implants: current designs and future possibilities. J Rehabil Res Dev 45:695–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599812438041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zeng FG (2002) Temporal pitch in electric hearing. Hear Res 174:101–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(02)00644-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  10. 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 

  11. Fry DB (1955) Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. J Acoust Soc Am 27:765–768. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1908022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chakraborty R, Goffman L (2011) Production of lexical stress in non-native speakers of American English: kinematic correlates of stress and transfer. J Speech Lang Hear Res 54:821–835. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0018)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Colombo L (1992) Lexical stress effect and its interaction with frequency in word pronunciation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:987–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Colombo L, Zevin J (2009) Stress priming in reading and the selective modulation of lexical and sub-lexical pathways. PLoS ONE 4:e7219. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007219

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Thornton AM, Iacobini C, Burani C (1997) BDVBD. Una base di dati sul vocabolario di base della lingua italiana [BDVDB: a database for the Italian basic dictionary]. Bulzoni, Roma

  16. Colombo L, Sulpizio S (2015) When orthography is not enough: the effect of lexical stress in lexical decision. Mem Cognit 43:811–824. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0506-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Spinelli G, Sulpizio S, Primativo S, Burani C (2016) Stress in context: morpho-syntactic properties affect lexical stress assignment in reading aloud. Front Psychol 7:942. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00942

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rahmani H, Rietveld T, Gussenhoven C (2015) Stress "Deafness" reveals absence of lexical marking of stress or tone in the adult grammar. PLoS ONE 10:e0143968. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143968

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mampe B, Friederici AD, Christophe A, Wermke K (2009) Newborns’ cry melody is shaped by their native language. Curr Biol 19:1994–1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.09.064

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Weber C, Hahne A, Friedrich M, Friederici AD (2004) Discrimination of word stress in early infant perception: electrophysiological evidence. Cogn Brain Res 18:149–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Friederici AD, Friedrich M, Christophe A (2007) Brain responses in 4 month-old infants are already language specific. Curr Biol 17:1208–1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.011

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Vavatzanidis NK, Mürbe D, Friederici AD, Hahne A (2016) The Perception of stress pattern in young cochlear implanted children: an EEG study. Front Neurosci 10:68. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00068

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Most T, Peled M (2007) Perception of suprasegmental features of speech by children with cochlear implants and children with hearing aids. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 12:350–361. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enm012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jackson P, Kelly D (1986) The relationship between word and stress pattern recognition ability and hearing level in hearing impaired young adults. Volta Rev 88:279–288

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rubin-Spitz J, McGarr N (1986) Perception of stress contrasts by the hearing impaired. J Acoust Soc Am 79:10S. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2023065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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 

  27. 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–OA34.

  28. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cutugno F, Prosser S, Turrini M (2000) Audiometria vocale, vol. IV. Resound Italia, Padova

    Google Scholar 

  30. Baer T, Moore BC (1993) Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 94:1229–1241. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.408176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 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 

  33. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 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 

  35. 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 

  36. Dorman MF, Gifford RH, Spahr AJ, McKarns SA (2008) The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies. Audiol Neurootol 13:105–112. https://doi.org/10.1159/000111782

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Dincer D'Alessandro H, Sennaroğlu G, Yücel E, Belgin E, Mancini P (2015) Binaural squelch and head shadow effects in children with unilateral cochlear implants and contralateral hearing aids. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 35:343–349. https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-497

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Mok M, Grayden D, Dowell RC, Lawrence D (2006) Speech Perception for Adults Who Use Hearing Aids in Conjunction with Cochlear Implants in opposite Ears. J Speech Lang Hear Res 49:338–351. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/027)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Geert DeCeulaer from the Eargroup (Antwerp-Deurne, Belgium) for valuable help in providing us the spectrums of the typical stimuli from low-pass-filtered Word Stress Pattern test.

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

  2. Department of Audiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Istanbul Aydın University, Beşyol Mah. İnönü Cad. No: 38 Küçükçekmece, Istanbul, Turkey

    Hilal Dincer D’Alessandro

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

This research was not financially supported. 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. 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 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05502-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05502-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation