Cochlear implant (CI) recipients have only limited access to fundamental frequency (F0) information, and thus exhibit deficits in speech intonation recognition. For speech intonation, F0 serves as the primary cue, and other potential acoustic cues (e.g. intensity properties) may also contribute. This study examined the effects of cooperating or conflicting acoustic cues on speech intonation recognition by adult CI and normal hearing (NH) listeners with full-spectrum and spectrally degraded speech stimuli. Identification of speech intonation that signifies question and statement contrasts was measured in 13 CI recipients and 4 NH listeners, using resynthesized bi-syllabic words, where F0 and intensity properties were systematically manipulated. The stimulus set was comprised of tokens whose acoustic cues (i.e. F0 contour and intensity patterns) were either cooperating or conflicting. Subjects identified if each stimulus is a ‘statement’ or a ‘question’ in a single-interval, 2-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) paradigm. Logistic models were fitted to the data, and estimated coefficients were compared under cooperating and conflicting conditions, between the subject groups (CI vs. NH), and under full-spectrum and spectrally degraded conditions for NH listeners. The results indicated that CI listeners’ intonation recognition was enhanced by cooperating F0 contour and intensity cues, but was adversely affected by these cues being conflicting. On the other hand, with full-spectrum stimuli, NH listeners’ intonation recognition was not affected by cues being cooperating or conflicting. The effects of cues being cooperating or conflicting were comparable between the CI group and NH listeners with spectrally degraded stimuli. These findings suggest the importance of taking multiple acoustic sources for speech recognition into consideration in aural rehabilitation for CI recipients.

Keywords:
Cochlear implants, Intonation, Speech, Perception
1.
Boersma P, Weenink D: Praat (Computer Software, Version 4.3). 2004.
2.
Chatterjee M, Peng S: Processing fundamental frequency contrasts with cochlear implants: psychophysics and speech intonation. Hear Res 2008;235:145–156.
3.
Ciocca V, Francis AL, Aisha R, Wong L: The perception of Cantonese lexical tones by early-deafened cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am 2002;111:2250–2256.
4.
Eilers R, Oller DK, Urbano R, Moroff D: Conflicting and cooperating cues: perception of cues to final consonant voicing by infants and adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1989;32:307–316.
5.
Faulkner A, Rosen S, Smith C: Effects of the salience of pitch and periodicity information on the intelligibility of four-channel vocoded speech: implications for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2000;108:1877–1887.
6.
Fu QJ, Nogaki G: Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2004;6:19–27.
7.
Fu QJ, Shannon RV: Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1999;105:1889–1990.
8.
Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang XS: Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;110:1150–1163.
9.
Geurts L, Wouters J: Coding of the fundamental frequency in continuous interleaved sampling processors for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;109:713–726.
10.
Green T, Faulkner A, Rosen S: Spectral and temporal cues to pitch in noise-excited vocoder simulations of continuous-interleaved-sampling cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2002;112:2155–2164.
11.
Green T, Faulkner A, Rosen S: Enhancing temporal cues to voice pitch in continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;116:2298–2310.
12.
Greenwood, DD: A cochlear frequency-position function for several species – 29 years later. J. Acoust Soc Am 1990;87:2592–2605.
13.
Hazan V, Rosen S: Individual variability in the perception of cues to place contrasts in initial stops. Percept Psychophys 1991;49:187–200.
14.
Lehiste I: Suprasegmental features of speech; in Lass NJ (ed): Contemporary Issues in Experimental Phonetics. New York, Academic Press, 1976, pp 225–239.
15.
Morrongiello BA, Robson RC, Best CT, Clifton RK: Trading relations in the perception of speech by 5-year-old children. J Exp Child Psychol 1984;37:231–250.
16.
Peng S, Tomblin JB, Cheung H, Lin YS, Wang LS: Perception and production of Mandarin tones in prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2004;25:251–264.
17.
Peng S, Tomblin JB, Turner CW: Production and perception of speech intonation in pediatric cochlear implant recipients and individuals with normal hearing. Ear Hear 2008;29:336–351.
18.
Rosen, S: Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1992;336:367–373.
19.
Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M: Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995;270:303–304.
20.
Whalen DH, Xu Y: Information for Mandarin tones in the amplitude contour and in brief segments. Phonetica 1992;49:25–47.
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
2009
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.