Vowel formant discrimination in high- fidelity speech by hearing-impaired listeners. Diane Kewley-Port, Chang Liu (also University at Buffalo,) T. Zachary.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Frequency representation The ability to use the spectrum or the fine structure of sound to detect, discriminate, or identify sound.

Advertisements

Improving audibility as a foundation for better speech understanding Pamela Souza, PhD Northwestern University Evanston, IL.

Early vs. Late Onset Hearing Loss: How Children Differ from Adults Andrea Pittman, PhD Arizona State University.

Tone perception and production by Cantonese-speaking and English- speaking L2 learners of Mandarin Chinese Yen-Chen Hao Indiana University.

The Role of F0 in the Perceived Accentedness of L2 Speech Mary Grantham O’Brien Stephen Winters GLAC-15, Banff, Alberta May 1, 2009.

Sounds that “move” Diphthongs, glides and liquids.

Hearing relative phases for two harmonic components D. Timothy Ives 1, H. Martin Reimann 2, Ralph van Dinther 1 and Roy D. Patterson 1 1. Introduction.

1.0 Introduction Traditional View of phonetic laryngeal contrasts (/t/~/d/, VOICING): F0 drop, F1 drop, pulsing in the gap, CV Ratio, etc. (Kingston et.

“Connecting the dots” How do articulatory processes “map” onto acoustic processes?

Coarticulation Analysis of Dysarthric Speech Xiaochuan Niu, advised by Jan van Santen.

3pSC9. Effect of reduced audibility on masking release for normal- and hard-of-hearing listeners Peggy Nelson, Yingjiu Nie, Elizabeth Anderson, Bhagyashree.

Occupational Audiometric Testing Part 1: Purposes and Procedures Thomas W. Rimmer, ScD, CIH Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health University of Arkansas.

TAKING AN AUDIOMETRIC TEST.  What an audiometric test is  Why it’s important to you  What you should expect –Pre-test examination –Audiometric test.

Chapter 8 Auditory Training Perry C. Hanavan, Au.D.

Speech perception 2 Perceptual organization of speech.

Perception of syllable prominence by listeners with and without competence in the tested language Anders Eriksson 1, Esther Grabe 2 & Hartmut Traunmüller.

Speaking Style Conversion Dr. Elizabeth Godoy Speech Processing Guest Lecture December 11, 2012.

Analysis and Synthesis of Shouted Speech Tuomo Raitio Jouni Pohjalainen Manu Airaksinen Paavo Alku Antti Suni Martti Vainio.

Vocal Emotion Recognition with Cochlear Implants Xin Luo, Qian-Jie Fu, John J. Galvin III Presentation By Archie Archibong.

A.Diederich– International University Bremen – Sensation and Perception – Fall Frequency Analysis in the Cochlea and Auditory Nerve cont'd The Perception.

TEMPLATE DESIGN © Listener’s variation in phoneme category boundary as a source of sound change: a case of /u/-fronting.

Interrupted speech perception Su-Hyun Jin, Ph.D. University of Texas & Peggy B. Nelson, Ph.D. University of Minnesota.

TOPIC 4 BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT MEASURES. The Audiometer Types Clinical Screening.

CSD 5400 REHABILITATION PROCEDURES FOR THE HARD OF HEARING Auditory Training.

Acoustical Society of America, Chicago 7 June 2001 Effect of Reverberation on Spatial Unmasking for Nearby Speech Sources Barbara Shinn-Cunningham, Lisa.

Perceptual Weighting Strategies in Normal Hearing and Hearing Impaired Children and Adults Andrea Pittman, Ph.D. Patricia Stelmachowicz, Ph.D. Dawna Lewis,

Measurement of Hearing and Audiogram Interpretation

Modernising Children’s Hearing Aid Services Sound Field Testing MCHAS TEAM Wave 4 SFR 17/05/04.

Physics 1251 The Science and Technology of Musical Sound Unit 2 Session 14 MWF Human Perception: Loudness Unit 2 Session 14 MWF Human Perception: Loudness.

Context and the Relationship Between Social Anxiety and Urge to Drink Tracey A. Garcia & Lindsay S. Ham Florida International University Introduction 

Comparisons of Word Recognition Performance in Normal-Hearing Children A Pilot Project by Tiffany Skinner and Stephanie Taylor Spring 1999.

Linical & Experimental Audiology Speech-in-noise screening tests by internet; improving test sensitivity for noise-induced hearing loss Monique Leensen.

Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, and the Department of Audiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm,

From Auditory Masking to Supervised Separation: A Tale of Improving Intelligibility of Noisy Speech for Hearing- impaired Listeners DeLiang Wang Perception.

Speech Acoustics1 Clinical Application of Frequency and Intensity Variables Frequency Variables Amplitude and Intensity Variables Voice Disorders Neurological.

METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LITERATURE Low frequency information via a hearing aid has been shown to increase speech intelligibility in noise.

Mr Background Noise and Miss Speech Perception in: by Elvira Perez and Georg Meyer.

Studies of Information Coding in the Auditory Nerve Laurel H. Carney Syracuse University Institute for Sensory Research Departments of Biomedical & Chemical.

Sh s Children with CIs produce ‘s’ with a lower spectral peak than their peers with NH, but both groups of children produce ‘sh’ similarly [1]. This effect.

Sounds in a reverberant room can interfere with the direct sound source. The normal hearing (NH) auditory system has a mechanism by which the echoes, or.

Hearing & Aging Or age brings wisdom and other bad news.

Need for cortical evoked potentials Assessment and determination of amplification benefit in actual hearing aid users is an issue that continues to be.

creating sound value TM Spatial release from masking deficits in hearing-impaired people: Is inadequate audibility the problem? Helen.

How Does auditory perception organization works ? by Elvira Perez and Georg Meyer Dept. Psychology, Liverpool University, UK Hoarse Meeting, Chrysler Ulm,

Analog vs. Digital “’A Hearing Perspective” Andy Raguskus, CEO SONIC innovations, Inc.

To examine the feasibility of using confusion matrices from speech recognition tests to identify impaired channels, impairments in this study were simulated.

Takeshi SAITOU 1, Masataka GOTO 1, Masashi UNOKI 2 and Masato AKAGI 2 1 National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) 2 Japan.

1 Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception Sandra Anacleto uOttawa.

SOUND PRESSURE, POWER AND LOUDNESS MUSICAL ACOUSTICS Science of Sound Chapter 6.

Speech Audiometry SPA 4302 Summer The Diagnostic Audiometer Equipped with Inputs for microphones, cassette tapes, or CDs Volume unit (VU) meters.

Voice Activity Detection based on OptimallyWeighted Combination of Multiple Features Yusuke Kida and Tatsuya Kawahara School of Informatics, Kyoto University,

Katherine Morrow, Sarah Williams, and Chang Liu Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX

Tools for optimizing the installation of warning sounds in noisy workplaces Chantal Laroche, Christian Giguère, Rida Al Osman and Yun Zheng 2010 NHCA Conference.

Motor Theory + Signal Detection Theory

Bayesian Speech Synthesis Framework Integrating Training and Synthesis Processes Kei Hashimoto, Yoshihiko Nankaku, and Keiichi Tokuda Nagoya Institute.

3aSC20. Sentence Comprehension When FormantTransitions Are Present Or Absent By Normal-hearing And Hearing-impaired Listeners. Jaehee Lee * & Diane Kewley-Port.

Janine Wotton, Kristin Welsh, Crystal Smith, Rachel Elvebak, Samantha Haseltine (Gustavus Adolphus College) and Barbara Shinn-Cunningham (Boston University).

Figures for Chapter 8 Candidacy Dillon (2001) Hearing Aids.

A STUDY ON PERCEPTUAL COMPENSATION FOR / /- FRONTING IN A MERICAN E NGLISH Reiko Kataoka February 14, 2009 BLS 35.

SOUND PRESSURE, POWER AND LOUDNESS

Date of download: 5/27/2016 Copyright © 2016 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. From: The Importance of High-Frequency Audibility in the.

Spectral subtraction algorithm and optimize Wanfeng Zou 7/3/2014.

Danielle Werle Undergraduate Thesis Intelligibility and the Carrier Phrase Effect in Sinewave Speech.

An Introduction to : a closer look at analysing vowels

PSYCHOACOUSTICS A branch of psychophysics

A. B. C. < × >.

Consistent and inconsistent interaural cues don't differ for tone detection but do differ for speech recognition Frederick Gallun Kasey Jakien Rachel Ellinger.

CHAPTER 10 Auditory Sensitivity.

A–E, Active avoidance (A–D) and optokinetic testing (E) in an independent cohort. A–E, Active avoidance (A–D) and optokinetic testing (E) in an independent.

Speech Communications

Presentation transcript:

Vowel formant discrimination in high- fidelity speech by hearing-impaired listeners. Diane Kewley-Port, Chang Liu (also University at Buffalo,) T. Zachary Burkle Indiana University, SPHS Presented at the Acoustical Society of America Meeting, Austin, TX, Nov. 11, 2003.

Thanks to SPL Lab members Larry Humes (Investigator) Maureen Coughlin (Audiologist, ABD) Kelley Anderson (Research Assistant) Bill Mills (Programmer)

Formant Discrimination Just noticeable difference between standard vowel and one with shifted formant. Psychophysical procedures to determine thresholds formant frequency,  F (Hz). For 10+ years, experiments have systematically varied conditions, phonetic context, F0, noise etc. Purpose: Examine formant thresholds for hearing-impaired listeners (HI) in nearly natural speech, including sentences

High-Fidelity Speech To preserve naturalness, use STRAIGHT (Kawahara et al., 1999) synthesis Stimulus Samples for word “bad” –Sentence –Word (standard vowel) –Word (10% F1 increment, NH, optimal listening Weber Fraction = 1.5%)

Experimental Factors for HI study Formant Frequency: / I E Q Ã / F1 & F2 Audibility: 70 dB SPL partial vs. 95 dB SPL fully Linguistic Context: isolated vowels, words, sentences Sent + ID task: Sentence discrimination only vs. Sentence discrimination + ID

Hearing Impaired Listeners 21 – 55 years old, N = 5 Mild – moderate, high-frequency loss

Procedures Day 1 Screening Days 2-4 Training Days 5-23 Testing Linguistic Context (ISO, Word, Sent) and Sent + ID blocks randomized daily 95 vs. 70 dB SPL levels fixed each day

Audibility (70 vs 95) No Linguistic Context Yes (ISO, Word, Sent) Sent + ID task No Explain with figures Summary Threshold Results FactorSignificant Formant Frequency (8) Yes

1) Formant Frequency 2)Audibility

3) Linguistic Context. Thresholds different Why? Post-hocs, only  F word <  F Sent

Reversal,  F Iso >  F Word

Comparison HI to NH (Hi-Fi)

Thresholds Hi-Fi vs. Synthetic Speech Richie, Kewley-Port, & Coughlin (2003) reported  F for isolated formant synthesized vowels (Syn) for HI Liu & Kewley-Port (2003) report for NH no difference Hi-Fi and Syn for isolated vowels and words Predict that thresholds for our Hi-Fi vowels same as Syn vowels from Richie et al.

Hi-Fi elevated by 150%

Summary Formant discrimination by HI significantly effected by –Formant Frequency –Linguistic Context –Speech quality (Hi-Fi harder) Surprising Hi-Fi threshold comparisons – Thresholds for softer sentences better than louder –  hresholds for words better than isolated vowels

Baseline Thresholds Normal Hearing Listeners (NH) Formant Synthesized (Syn) Female Isolated (ISO) Vowels F1 & F2 Four Vowels: / I E Q Ã /

Linguistic Context Syn

Added ID Task

Audibility versus Pathology Vowels fully audible 70 dB NH, 95 dB HI  F2 elevated by 200 %