Perception of vowels and prosody by cochlear implant recipients in noise

Zyl, Marianne Van; Hanekom, Johan J.

doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2013.09.002

Cited by 17 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The precocity of CI users in this study raises questions of why they faced difficulties in prior work (Chatterjee & Peng, 2008; Meister et al, 2009; Van Zyl & Hanekom, 2013; Luo et al, 2007; Hopyan-Misakyan et al, 2009; Nakata et al, 2012; Peng et al, 2012; Morris et al, 2013; Gilbers et al, 2015). We consider three factors that may contribute to this discrepancy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Prior work focuses on how prosody distinguishes questions-statements (Chatterjee & Peng, 2008; Meister et al, 2009; Van Zyl & Hanekom, 2013; Peng et al, 2012) and speaker emotions (Luo et al, 2007; Hopyan-Misakyan et al, 2009; Nakata et al, 2012). While pitch cues are primary in these cases, it is unclear whether changes in intensity and duration reliably exist (Srinivasan & Massaro, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unsurprisingly, CI users face difficulties with prosody. Relative to NH listeners, they are less accurate at distinguishing questions from statements (Chatterjee & Peng, 2008; Meister, Landwehr, Pyschny, Walger, & von Wedel, 2009; Peng, Lu, & Chatterjee, 2012; Van Zyl & Hanekom, 2013), assessing speaker emotions (Gilbers et al, 2015; Luo, Fu, & Galvin, 2007; Hopyan-Misakyan, Gordon, Dennis, & Papsin, 2009; Nakata, Trehub, & Kanda, 2012), and isolating word stress (Morris, Magnusson, Faulkner, Jönsson, & Juul, 2013). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…First, rather than examining prosody in the context of isolated words (Chatterjee & Peng, 2008; Peng et al, 2012; Gilbers et al, 2015; Hopyan-Misakyan et al, 2009; Van Zyl & Hanekom, 2013), we employ full sentences to approximate the real-world challenges of spoken-language comprehension. Second, rather than relying on metalinguistic judgments or response-categorization tasks, we examine prosody effects using the visual-world eye-tracking paradigm (Salverda & Tanenhaus, in press).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Using prosody to infer discourse prominence in cochlear-implant users and normal-hearing listeners

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implants (CIs) provide speech perception to adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss, but the acoustic signal remains severely degraded. Limited access to pitch cues is thought to decrease sensitivity to prosody in CI users, but co-occurring changes in intensity and duration may provide redundant cues. The current study investigates how listeners use these cues to infer discourse prominence. CI users and normal-hearing (NH) listeners were presented with sentences varying in prosody (accented vs. unaccented words) while their eye-movements were measured to referents varying in discourse status (given vs. new categories). In Experiment 1, all listeners inferred prominence when prosody on nouns distinguished categories (“SANDAL” → not sandwich). In Experiment 2, CI users and NH listeners presented with natural speech inferred prominence when prosody on adjectives implied contrast across both categories and properties (“PINK horse” → not the orange horse). In contrast, NH listeners presented with simulated CI (vocoded) speech were sensitive to acoustic differences in prosody, but did not use these cues to infer discourse status. Together, this suggests that exploiting redundant cues for comprehension varies with the demands of language processing and prior experience with the degraded signal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Using prosody to infer discourse prominence in cochlear-implant users and normal-hearing listeners

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a group, CI users’ overall performance is well below normal hearing listeners (Peng, et al, 2008; Most & Peled, 2007; Van Zyl & Hanekom, 2013; Chatterjee & Peng, 2008; Meister, et al, 2009; Peng, et al, 2012) and severely-to-profoundly deaf pediatric hearing aid users (Most & Peled 2007). Statements typically end with a decrease in pitch relative to the remainder of the sentence as compared to an increase in pitch at the end of questions.…”

Section: Review Of Prosody and Voice Emotion Studies In Cochlear Imentioning

confidence: 94%

Voice emotion perception and production in cochlear implant users

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Voice emotion is a fundamental component of human social interaction and social development. Unfortunately, cochlear implant users are often forced to interface with highly degraded prosodic cues as a result of device constraints in extraction, processing, and transmission. As such, individuals with cochlear implants frequently demonstrate significant difficulty in recognizing voice emotions in comparison to their normal hearing counterparts. Cochlear implant-mediated perception and production of voice emotion is an important but relatively understudied area of research. However, a rich understanding of the voice emotion auditory processing offers opportunities to improve upon CI biomedical design and to develop training programs benefiting CI performance. In this review, we will address the issues, current literature, and future directions for improved voice emotion processing in cochlear implant users.

show abstract