Acoustic and perceptual appraisal of speech production in pediatric cochlear implant users

Poissant, Sarah F.; Peters, Kimberly A.; Robb, Michael P.

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.12.008

Cited by 36 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in contrast to studies showing changes in voice with acute changes in hearing, other studies have found more heterogeneous results. Some adults did not reduce F0 or SPL, whereas others actually increased these parameters . Such individual variability in pitch and loudness is primarily evident with sudden changes in auditory feedback (i.e., turning the implant on/off), and may suggest that, for some, vocal control was not dependent on moment‐to‐moment feedback, instead operating over longer time scales.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…These effects can be seen as early as 1 day after implant activation but have not been seen in measurements immediately upon activation . For experienced users, the effects of feedback on duration appear to be rapid; turning an implant off results in longer word durations within one to two utterances, and turning it back on results in improvements over similar time scales . Children with CIs exhibit similar vocal durations to NH peers during choral singing .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Control of speech and voice in cochlear implant patients

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Hearing plays an important role in the learning and production of speech, but the benefits of cochlear implantation for such vocal control are unclear. Here, we present a perspective and review of recent work on the control of speech and voice following cochlear implantation. We further discuss insights provided on the mechanisms of normal vocal control and implications for future rehabilitative approaches. Data Sources Peer‐reviewed articles on speech and voice production in cochlear implant patients were identified from PUBMED. Relevant articles were supplemented with selected publications describing normal vocal control mechanisms and behaviors. Review Methods Publications that discussed speech and voice outcomes following cochlear implantation were chosen, with a focus on those presenting measurements of specific speech or voice parameters. Results Recent studies demonstrate that hearing restoration by cochlear implantation has significant effects on many aspects of voice and speech production. These include changes in vocal pitch and loudness, as well as improved control of both vowels and consonants. Despite these improvements, however, the speech of many implant recipients remains abnormal as compared to normal hearing individuals. Such differences likely result from the impoverished auditory feedback provided by the implant. Conclusions Cochlear implants provide valuable insights into the role of hearing in vocal production. Although implants improve vocal production for most patients, there remains considerable room for future study and therapeutic improvement. Laryngoscope, 129:2158–2163, 2019

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Control of speech and voice in cochlear implant patients

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…17 Higgins et al 18 measured a wide range of deviant vocal behavior, whereas Lenden and Flipsen 19 reported gained control over laryngeal quality during the study period of 12-21 months. With respect to interpretation of the results mentioned in the literature, different methodological approaches are noticed with (1) different assessment conditions: pre-and postimplantation assessments 14,17,18 versus postimplantation assessments, 11 (2) different speech materials: sustained vowels 11,12,14,17 versus syllables 16,18 versus reading passages 15 versus continuous speech, 19 and (3) different assessment techniques: aerodynamic 18 versus standard acoustic analysis 12,14,16,17 versus self-made acoustic analysis program 15 versus perceptual evaluation. 11,20 Moreover, some studies mentioned small subject groups with (4) different ages, 11,15,19 (5) different speech-processing strategies [SPEAK (Spectral Peak Coding) and CIS (Continuous Interleaved Sampling) 12 17 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective Vocal Quality in Children Using Cochlear Implants: A Multiparameter Approach

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Individuals with hearing loss (HL) due to defects in auditory input are unable to develop the appropriate motor control needed for phonation mechanisms and speech production (4,5). These impairments (such as imprecise vowel and consonant production) can effect the acoustic characteristics of voice and the intelligibility of speech (4,8,9). Vowels are a critical factor for intelligibility of speech (10)(11)(12) and are involved in both prosodic and segmental features of speech (13,14).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Formant Frequencies in Persian Speaking Children with Different Degrees of Hearing Loss

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study compared formant frequencies in vowel production among children with different degrees of hearing loss (HL) and normal hearing. Methods: This study was carried out on 40 children with different degrees of HL (moderate, moderate to severe, severe, and profound). Forty age (7 to 9 years old) and gender (22 males and 18 females) matched children with normal hearing were included. After collecting acoustic data during vowel production (/a/i/,/u/) for 3 seconds, the mean of the F1 and F2 were selected using the Praat software. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Dunnett's Post Hoc test. Results: Several differences in formant frequencies were confirmed with ANOVA tests. The results from Dunnett's post hoc test showed that the F2 value of /a/ and /i/ in the control group were significantly different from all groups with HL (P < 0.05). However, the F1's of the control group in all 3 vowels were significantly different only from the profound group. Conclusions: There was little distinction between vowels of HL children, and their vowel space had become centralized presumably due to limited auditory feedback, relative invisibility of the articulatory gestures needed for vowel production, and similar tongue position for all vowels. The second formant tended to be affected more than the first formant because less audibility and the difficulty of its learning through vision.

show abstract

Acoustic and perceptual appraisal of speech production in pediatric cochlear implant users

Cited by 36 publications

References 26 publications

Control of speech and voice in cochlear implant patients

Control of speech and voice in cochlear implant patients

Objective Vocal Quality in Children Using Cochlear Implants: A Multiparameter Approach

Evaluation of Formant Frequencies in Persian Speaking Children with Different Degrees of Hearing Loss

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About