Use of Acoustic Cues by Children With Cochlear Implants

Giezen, Marcel R.; Escudero, Paola; Baker, Anne

doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0252)

Cited by 31 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A substitution of [f] for /s/ is not a typical developmental sound substitution (Smit, 1993). Furthermore, previous studies have shown that /s/ is a difficult sound for individuals with CIs to identify and that /s/ is often confused with /f/ (Munson et al, 2003;Donaldson and Kreft, 2006;Giezen et al, 2010). The spectral energy of /f/ is relatively flat compared to that of /s/.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Production of contrast between sibilant fricatives by children with cochlear implants

Todd¹,

Edwards²,

Litovsky³

2011

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech production by children with cochlear implants (CIs) is generally less intelligible and less accurate on a phonemic level than that of normally hearing children. Research has reported that children with CIs produce less acoustic contrast between phonemes than normally hearing children, but these studies have included correct and incorrect productions. The present study compared the extent of contrast between correct productions of /s/ and /$/ by children with CIs and two comparison groups: (1) normally hearing children of the same chronological age as the children with CIs and (2) normally hearing children with the same duration of auditory experience. Spectral peaks and means were calculated from the frication noise of productions of /s/ and /$/. Results showed that the children with CIs produced less contrast between /s/ and /$/ than normally hearing children of the same chronological age and normally hearing children with the same duration of auditory experience due to production of /s/ with spectral peaks and means at lower frequencies. The results indicate that there may be differences between the speech sounds produced by children with CIs and their normally hearing peers even for sounds that adults judge as correct.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Production of contrast between sibilant fricatives by children with cochlear implants

Todd¹,

Edwards²,

Litovsky³

2011

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implant users and normal-hearing subjects with CI simulations used formant movement and duration cues to the same extent in vowel recognition. Looking at pre-lingually deafened children who use CIs, Giezen and colleagues (2010) found that these children used similar cue-weighting strategies as children with normal hearing for three of four contrasts, /ɑ/-/a/, /ɪ/-/i/, and /bu/-/pu/. Thus, in some instances listeners using CIs rely on the same cues as listeners with normal hearing for phonemic judgments.…”

Section: Exploring Cue Weighting With Individuals With Cismentioning

confidence: 94%

“…For example, in the study by Giezen and colleagues (2010), the children with CIs used spectral cues in the /fu/-/su/ contrast less effectively than normal-hearing children. Hedrick and Carney (1997) conducted a study examining the relative contributions of formant transitions and amplitude structure to labeling decisions for synthetic fricative-vowel syllables.…”

Section: Exploring Cue Weighting With Individuals With Cismentioning

confidence: 97%

“…More equivalent metrics are obtained by using recognition probabilities in logistic regression, and this method has been applied in a number of speech perception studies (Benkí, 2001; Giezen, Escudero, & Baker, 2010; McMurray & Jongman, 2011; Morrison, 2009; Smits, Sereno, & Jongman, 2006). The calculated regression coefficients can be used as metrics of the extent to which phonemic labels are explained by each cue.…”

Section: Indexing the Weights Assigned To Acoustic Cuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do Adults With Cochlear Implants Rely on Different Acoustic Cues for Phoneme Perception Than Adults With Normal Hearing?

Moberly

Lowenstein

Tarr

et al. 2014

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Several acoustic cues specify any single phonemic contrast. Nonetheless, adult, native speakers of a language share weighting strategies, showing preferential attention to some properties over others. Cochlear implant (CI) signal processing disrupts the salience of some cues: in general, amplitude structure remains readily available, but spectral structure less so. This study asked how well speech recognition is supported if CI users shift attention to salient cues not weighted strongly by native speakers. Method 20 adults with CIs participated. The /bɑ/-/wɑ/ contrast was used because spectral and amplitude structure varies in correlated fashion for this contrast. Normal-hearing adults weight the spectral cue strongly, but the amplitude cue negligibly. Three measurements were made: labeling decisions, spectral and amplitude discrimination, and word recognition. Results Outcomes varied across listeners: some weighted the spectral cue strongly, some weighted the amplitude cue, and some weighted neither. Spectral discrimination predicted spectral weighting. Spectral weighting explained the most variance in word recognition. Age of onset of hearing loss predicted spectral weighting, but not unique variance in word recognition. Conclusions The weighting strategies of listeners with normal hearing likely support speech recognition best, so efforts in implant design, fitting, and training should focus on developing those strategies.

show abstract

“…For example, Caldwell and Nittrouer (2013) note that CIs transmit temporal aspects of speech relatively well; consequently, voice onset time (VOT)-and by extension, stop voicingpresents an opportunity to test how well children with CIs can form phonemic categories. Giezen, Escudero, and Baker (2010) found that Dutch children with CIs differentiate stop voicing contrasts (/bu/ vs. /pu/) better than other phonemic contrasts (/fu/ vs. /su/). However, production data for stop voicing differentiation involving children with CIs are less clear in that some studies find that children with CIs produce stop VOT values within the range produced by typically developing peers (e.g., Uchanski & Geers, 2003), whereas other studies indicate that stop voicing distinctions can be acquired by children with CIs but with VOT values that are outside the typical range (Bharadwaj & Graves, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Initial Stop Voicing in Bilingual Children With Cochlear Implants and Their Typically Developing Peers With Normal Hearing

Bunta

Goodin-Mayeda

Procter

et al. 2016

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study focuses on stop voicing differentiation in bilingual children with normal hearing (NH) and their bilingual peers with hearing loss who use cochlear implants (CIs). Method: Twenty-two bilingual children participated in our study (11 with NH, M age = 5;1 [years;months], and 11 with CIs, M hearing age = 5;1). The groups were matched on hearing age and a range of demographic variables. Single-word picture elicitation was used with word-initial singleton stop consonants. Repeated measures analyses of variance with three within-subject factors (language, stop voicing, and stop place of articulation) and one between-subjects factor (NH vs. CI user) were conducted with voice onset time and percentage of prevoiced stops as dependent variables. Results: Main effects were statistically significant for language, stop voicing, and stop place of articulation on both voice onset time and prevoicing. There were no significant main effects for NH versus CI groups. Both children with NH and with CIs differentiated stop voicing in their languages and by stop place of articulation. Stop voicing differentiation was commensurate across the groups of children with NH versus CIs. Conclusions: Stop voicing differentiation is accomplished in a similar fashion by bilingual children with NH and CIs, and both groups differentiate stop voicing in a languagespecific fashion.

show abstract

Use of Acoustic Cues by Children With Cochlear Implants

Abstract: Despite their different auditory input, children with a CI appear to be able to use many acoustic cues effectively in speech perception. Most importantly, children with a CI and normal-hearing children were observed to use similar cue-weighting patterns.

Cited by 31 publications

References 40 publications

Production of contrast between sibilant fricatives by children with cochlear implants

Production of contrast between sibilant fricatives by children with cochlear implants

Do Adults With Cochlear Implants Rely on Different Acoustic Cues for Phoneme Perception Than Adults With Normal Hearing?

Initial Stop Voicing in Bilingual Children With Cochlear Implants and Their Typically Developing Peers With Normal Hearing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About