Frequency discrimination of complex tones by hearing-impaired subjects: Evidence for loss of ability to use temporal fine structure

At least two modes of pitch perception exist: in one, the fundamental frequency ͑F0͒ of harmonic complex tones is estimated using the temporal fine structure ͑TFS͒ of individual low-order resolved harmonics; in the other, F0 is derived from the temporal envelope of high-order unresolved harmonics that interact in the auditory periphery. Pitch is typically more accurate in the former than in the latter mode. Another possibility is that pitch can sometimes be coded via the TFS from unresolved harmonics. A recent study supporting this third possibility ͓Moore et al. ͑2006a͒. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119, 480-490͔ based its conclusion on a condition where phase interaction effects ͑implying unresolved harmonics͒ accompanied accurate F0 discrimination ͑implying TFS processing͒. The present study tests whether these results were influenced by audible distortion products. Experiment 1 replicated the original results, obtained using a low-level background noise. However, experiments 2-4 found no evidence for the use of TFS cues with unresolved harmonics when the background noise level was raised, or the stimulus level was lowered, to render distortion inaudible. Experiment 5 measured the presence and phase dependence of audible distortion products. The results provide no evidence that TFS cues are used to code the F0 of unresolved harmonics.

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can temporal fine structure represent the fundamental frequency of unresolved harmonics?

Oxenham

Micheyl

Keebler

2009

“…A number of studies using TFS speech suggest that listeners with sensorineural hearing loss have a reduced ability to use TFS cues Moore et al, 2006;Hopkins and Moore, 2007;Hopkins et al, 2008;Lorenzi et al, 2009), although their ability to use ENV cues is not degraded. It is unlikely that the inability of HI listeners to process TFS speech stems from a degradation in the ability of auditory-nerve fibers to phase lock to TFS.…”

Section: Implications For Hearing Impairment and CI Signal Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consonant identification using temporal fine structure and recovered envelope cues

Swaminathan

Reed

Desloge

et al. 2014

The contribution of recovered envelopes (RENVs) to the utilization of temporal-fine structure (TFS) speech cues was examined in normal-hearing listeners. Consonant identification experiments used speech stimuli processed to present TFS or RENV cues. Experiment 1 examined the effects of exposure and presentation order using 16-band TFS speech and 40-band RENV speech recovered from 16-band TFS speech. Prior exposure to TFS speech aided in the reception of RENV speech. Performance on the two conditions was similar ($50%-correct) for experienced listeners as was the pattern of consonant confusions. Experiment 2 examined the effect of varying the number of RENV bands recovered from 16-band TFS speech. Mean identification scores decreased as the number of RENV bands decreased from 40 to 8 and were only slightly above chance levels for 16 and 8 bands. Experiment 3 examined the effect of varying the number of bands in the TFS speech from which 40-band RENV speech was constructed. Performance fell from 85%-to 31%-correct as the number of TFS bands increased from 1 to 32. Overall, these results suggest that the interpretation of previous studies that have used TFS speech may have been confounded with the presence of RENVs.

“…Hence, deficits observed in the frequency discrimination of steady pure tones ͑e.g., Turner and Nelson, 1982;Tyler et al, 1983;Turner, 1987;Freyman and Nelson, 1991͒ and in the detection of low-rate FM ͑e.g., Zurek and Formby, 1981;Grant, 1987;Lacher-Fougère and Demany, 1998;Moore and Skrodzka, 2002;Buss et al, 2004͒ have been interpreted to indicate deficits in monaural TFS processing in HI listeners. This conclusion has been further supported by studies of frequency discrimination with harmonic complex tones ͑e.g., Horst, 1987;Moore et al, 2006;Hopkins and Moore, 2007͒. However, since none of the above mentioned studies has obtained both monaural and binaural measures of TFS processing, it remained unclear to what extent the deficits observed in the binaural tasks were due to monaural or independent binaural deficits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relations between frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure processing, and speech reception in impaired hearing

Strelcyk

Dau

2009

199

265

Frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure (TFS) processing, and speech reception were assessed for six normal-hearing (NH) listeners, ten sensorineurally hearing-impaired (HI) listeners with similar high-frequency losses, and two listeners with an obscure dysfunction (OD). TFS processing was investigated at low frequencies in regions of normal hearing, through measurements of binaural masked detection, tone lateralization, and monaural frequency modulation (FM) detection. Lateralization and FM detection thresholds were measured in quiet and in background noise. Speech reception thresholds were obtained for full-spectrum and lowpass-filtered sentences with different interferers. Both the HI listeners and the OD listeners showed poorer performance than the NH listeners in terms of frequency selectivity, TFS processing, and speech reception. While a correlation was observed between the monaural and binaural TFS-processing deficits in the HI listeners, no relation was found between TFS processing and frequency selectivity. The effect of noise on TFS processing was not larger for the HI listeners than for the NH listeners. Finally, TFS-processing performance was correlated with speech reception in a two-talker background and lateralized noise, but not in amplitude-modulated noise. The results provide constraints for future models of impaired auditory signal processing.