View All Issues
Perception of Temporal Fine Structure Speech and Recovered Envelope Speech in Younger and Older Adults with Normal Hearing Sensitivity | Journal of All India Institute of Speech and Hearing

Journal of All India Institute of Speech and Hearing

ISSN


ISSN


Advance Search
Information
Vol 38 No 1 (2019)
Hearing

Perception of Temporal Fine Structure Speech and Recovered Envelope Speech in Younger and Older Adults with Normal Hearing Sensitivity

PDF
  • Pavan Mahadevaiah,
  • Indira C,
  • Pazhayapisharath,
  • Arivudai Nambi,
  • Rajalakshmi K
Published September 12, 2019
Keywords
  • TFS speech, RENV speech, Young normal hearing, Old normal hearing
How to Cite
Pavan Mahadevaiah, C, I., Pazhayapisharath, Arivudai Nambi, & K, R. (2019). Perception of Temporal Fine Structure Speech and Recovered Envelope Speech in Younger and Older Adults with Normal Hearing Sensitivity. Journal of All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, 38(1), 58-66. Retrieved from http://203.129.241.91/jaiish/index.php/aiish/article/view/1289

Abstract

Perception of temporal fine structure (TFS) speech and recovered envelope (RENV) speech were compared between seven younger adults and seven older adults with normal hearing sensitivity. To create TFS speech, Kannada sentences were processed to remove temporal envelope cues while retaining TFS cues in 2, 4 and 8 frequency bands spanning the range of 80 to 8020 Hz. To create RENV speech, envelope cues were recovered from TFS speech extracted from 2 frequency bands, by passing it through 40 band-pass filters. RENV speech was also generated with simulated widened auditory filters, 2 and 4 times the normal auditory filter bandwidth. The findings show a general trend of reduction in scores with increase in number of frequency bands in TFS speech. The scores were significantly different across conditions when the age groups are combined, whereas significant difference between age groups was seen only for TFS speech extracted from 4 bands. Similarly, the scores reduced with simulation of cochlear hearing loss for perception of RENV speech. The scores were significantly different across the RENV speech conditions in both age groups. No significant difference was seen between the two age groups in any of the RENV speech conditions. The results of the study indicate that the ability to perceive TFS cues for sentence identification would degrade significantly with increase in the severity of cochlear pathology, without any significant age effect.

PDF

References

  1. Apoux, F., Millman, R. E., Viemeister, N. F., Brown, C. A., & Bacon, S. P. (2011). On the mechanisms involved in the recovery of envelope information from temporal fine structure. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(1), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3596463
  2. Apoux, F., Youngdahl, C. L., Yoho, S. E., & Healy, E. W. (2013). Can envelope recovery account for speech recognition based on temporal fine structure? The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(5), 3380–3380. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4805822
  3. Ardoint, M., Sheft, S., Fleuriot, P., Garnier, S., & Lorenzi, C. (2010). Perception of temporal fine-structure cues in speech with minimal envelope cues for listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. International Journal of Audiology, 49, 823–831. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2010.492402
  4. Buss, E., Hall, J. W., & Grose, J. H. (2004). Temporal fine-structure cues to speech and pure tone modulation in observers with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear and Hearing, 25, 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AUD.0000130796.73809.09
  5. Chen, F., Tsao, Y., & Lai, Y. H. (2016). Modeling speech intelligibility with recovered envelope from temporal fine structure stimulus. Speech Communication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2016.01.006
  6. Drullman, R., Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1994a). Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. Journal of Acoustical Society of America., 95, 1053– 1064.
  7. Drullman, R. (1995). Temporal envelope and fine structure cues for speech intelligibility. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.413112
  8. Drullman, Rob, Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1994b). Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95(5), 2670–2680. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.409836
  9. Eaves, J. M., Quentin Summerfield, A., & Kitterick, P. T. (2011). Benefit of temporal fine structure to speech perception in noise measured with controlled temporal envelopes. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(1), 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3592237
  10. Fogerty, D., & Entwistle, J. L. (2015). Level considerations for chimeric processing: Temporal envelope and fine structure contributions to speech intelligibility. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 138(5), EL459–EL464. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4935079
  11. Füllgrabe, C., Moore, B. C. J., & Stone, M. A. (2015). Age-group differences in speech identification despite matched audiometrically normal hearing: Contributions from auditory temporal processing and cognition. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 7(JAN), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00347
  12. Geetha, C., Kumar, K. S. S., Manjula, P., & Pavan, M. (2014). Development and standardisation of the sentence identification test in the Kannada language. Journal of Hearing Science ®, 4(1), OA18–OA26. http://www.journalofhearingscience.com/abstract/index/idArt/890267
  13. Ghitza, O. (2001). On the upper cutoff frequency of the auditory critical-band envelope detectors in the context of speech perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110(3), 1628. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1396325
  14. Gilbert, G., & Lorenzi, C. (2006). The ability of listeners to use recovered envelope cues from speech fine structure. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 2438–2444. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2173522
  15. Glasberg, B. R., & Moore, B. C. J. (1986). Auditory filter shapes in sub- jects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairments. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 79, 1020–1033.
  16. Heinz, M. G., & Swaminathan, J. (2009). Quantifying envelope and fine-structure coding in auditory nerve responses to chimaeric speech. JARO - Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-009-0169-8
  17. Hopkins, K., & Moore, B. C. J. (2010). Development of a fast method for measuring sensitivity to temporal fine structure information at low frequencies. International Journal of Audiology, 49(12), 940–946. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2010.512613
  18. Hopkins, K., & Moore, B. C. J. (2011). The effects of age and cochlear hearing loss on temporal fine structure sensitivity, frequency selectivity, and speech reception in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 334–349. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3585848
  19. Hopkins, K., Moore, B. C. J., & Stone, M. A. (2010). The effects of the addition of low-level , low-noise noise on the intelligibility of sentences processed to remove temporal envelope information. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3478773
  20. Joris, P. X., & Yin, T. C. (1992). Responses to amplitude-modulated tones in the auditory nerve of the cat. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.402757
  21. Léger, A. C., Desloge, J. G., Braida, L. D., & Swaminathan, J. (2015). The role of recovered envelope cues in the identification of temporal-fine-structure speech for hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137(L), 505–508. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4904540
  22. Loizou, P. C., Dorman, M., & Fitzke, J. (2000). The effect of reduced dynamic range on speech understanding: implications for patients with cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 21, 25–31. 10.1097/00003446-200002000-00006
  23. Lorenzi, C., Wallaert, N., Gnansia, D., Leger, A. C., Ives, D. T., Chays, A., Garnier, S., & Cazals, Y. (2012). Temporal-envelope reconstruction for hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 13(6), 853–865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-012-0350-3
  24. Moon, I. J., & Hong, S. H. (2014). What is temporal fine structure and why is it important? Korean Journal of Audiology, 18(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.7874/kja.2014.18.1.1
  25. Moore, B. C. J. (2019). The roles of temporal envelope and fine structure information in auditory perception. Acoustical Science and Technology, 40(2), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1250/ast.40.61
  26. Moore, B. C. J., Glasberg, B. R., Flanagan, H. J., & Adams, J. (2006). Frequency discrimination of complex tones; assessing the role of component resolvability and temporal fine structure. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(1), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2139070
  27. Moore, B. C. J., & Sek, A. (2009). Development of a fast method for determining sensitivity to temporal fine structure. International Journal of Audiology, 48(4), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020802475235
  28. Moore, B. C. J., Vickers, D. A., & Mehta, A. (2012). The effects of age on temporal fine structure sensitivity in monaural and binaural conditions. International Journal of Audiology, 51(10), 715–721. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2012.690079
  29. Peters, R. W., & Moore, B. C. J. (1992). Auditory filters and aging: Filters when auditory thresholds are normal. In Y. Cazals, L. Demany, & K. Horner (Eds.), Auditory Physiology and Perception (pp. 179–185). Oxford.
  30. Rice, S. O. (1973). Distortion produced by band limitation of an FM wave. Bell System Technical Journal, 52, 605–626.
  31. Shannon, R. V, Zeng, F. G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science (New York, N.Y.), 270, 303–304. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.270.5234.303
  32. Sheft, S., Ardoint, M., & Lorenzi, C. (2008). Speech identification based on temporal fine structure cues. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 124, 562–575. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2918540
  33. Smith, Z. M., Delgutte, B., & Oxenham, A. J. (2002). Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature, 416(6876), 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/416087a
  34. Strelcyk, O., & Dau, T. (2009). Relations between frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure processing, and speech reception in impaired hearing. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 125, 3328–3345.
  35. Swaminathan, J., & Heinz, M. G. (2012). Psychophysiological Analyses Demonstrate the Importance of Neural Envelope Coding for Speech Perception in Noise. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 1747–1756. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4493-11.2012
  36. Swaminathan, J., Mason, C. R., Streeter, T. M., Best, V., Roverud, E., & Kidd, G. (2016). Role of binaural temporal fine structure and envelope cues in cocktail-party listening. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(31), 8250–8257. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4421-15.2016
  37. Swaminathan, J., Reed, C. M., Desloge, J. G., Braida, L. D., & Delhorne, L. A. (2014). Consonant identification using temporal fine structure and recovered envelope cues. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135(4), 2078–2090. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4865920
  38. Venkatesan, S. (2009). Ethical guidelines for bio-behavioral research involving human subjects (pp. 1–23). All India Institute of Speech and Hearing. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  39. Voelcker, H. B. (1996). Towards a unified theory of modulation. I. Phase- envelope relationships. Proceedings of the IEEE, 54(3), 340–354.
  40. Won, J. H., Lorenzi, C., Nie, K., Li, X., Jameyson, E. M., Drennan, W. R., & Rubinstein, J. T. (2012). The ability of cochlear implant users to use temporal envelope cues recovered from speech frequency modulation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132(2), 1113–1119. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4726013