Download PDF
Semin Hear 2013; 34(02): 074-085
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1341345
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Individual Variability of Hearing-Impaired Consonant Perception

Andrea Trevino
1   The University of Illinois Champaign Urbana, Urbana, Illinois.
,
Jont B. Allen
1   The University of Illinois Champaign Urbana, Urbana, Illinois.
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
22 April 2013 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The study of hearing impaired speech recognition at the consonant level allows for a detailed examination of individual variability. Use of low-context stimuli, such as consonants, aids in minimizing the influence of some variable cognitive abilities (e.g., use of context, memory) across listeners and focuses on differences in the processing or interpretation of the existing acoustic consonant cues. We show that hearing-impaired perception can vary across multiple tokens of the same consonant, in both noise robustness and confusion groups. Within-consonant differences in noise robustness are related to differences in intensity of the consonant cue region. For a single listener, high errors can exist for a small subset of test stimuli, while performance for the majority of test stimuli remains at ceiling. The existence of within-consonant differences in confusion groups entails that an average over multiple tokens of the same consonant results in a larger confusion group than for a single consonant token. For each consonant token, the same confusion group is consistently observed across a population of hearing-impaired listeners. Quantifying perceptual differences provides insight into the perception of speech under noisy conditions and characterizes each listener's hearing impairment.

Keywords

Consonant - individual differences - speech perception - confusion group
 

  • References

  • 1 Baum SR, Blumstein SE. Preliminary observations on the use of duration as a cue to syllable-initial fricative consonant voicing in English. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 82: 1073-1077
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dorman M, Studdert-Kennedy M, Raphael L. Stop-consonant recognition: release bursts and formant transitions as functionally equivalent, context-dependent cues. Atten Percept Psychophys 1977; 22: 109-122
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Herd W, Jongman A, Sereno J. An acoustic and perceptual analysis of /t/ and /d /flaps in American English. J Phonetics 2010; 38: 504-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jongman A, Wayland R, Wong S. Acoustic characteristics of English fricatives. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 108 (3 Pt 1) 1252-1263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kurowski K, Blumstein SE. Acoustic properties for place of articulation in nasal consonants. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 81: 1917-1927
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Li F, Menon A, Allen JB. A psychoacoustic method to find the perceptual cues of stop consonants in natural speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2010; 127: 2599-2610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Li F, Trevino A, Menon A, Allen J. A psychoacoustic method for studying the necessary and sufficient perceptual cues of fricative consonants in noise. J Acst Soc Amer 2012; 132: 2663-2675
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Phatak SA, Allen JB. Consonant and vowel confusions in speech-weighted noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121: 2312-2326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Singh R, Allen JB. The influence of stop consonants' perceptual features on the Articulation Index model. J Acoust Soc Am 2012; 131: 3051-3068
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Skinner M. Speech intelligibility in noise-induced hearing loss: effects of high-frequency compensation. Doctoral Dissertation; 1976
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Skinner MW, Miller JD. Amplification bandwidth and intelligibility of speech in quiet and noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Audiology 1983; 22: 253-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kamm CA, Dirks DD, Bell TS. Speech recognition and the Articulation Index for normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1985; 77: 281-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Smoorenburg GF. Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91: 421-437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Roeser R, Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H. Audiology: Diagnosis. New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Halpin C, Rauch SD. Clinical implications of a damaged cochlea: pure tone thresholds vs information-carrying capacity. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 140: 473-476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Walden BE, Montgomery AA. Dimensions of consonant perception in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Speech Hear Res 1975; 18: 444-455
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Killion M, Niquette P. What can the pure-tone audiogram tell us about a patients SNR loss. Hear J 2000; 53: 46-53
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mines MA, Hanson BF, Shoup JE. Frequency of occurrence of phonemes in conversational English. Lang Speech 1978; 21: 221-241
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hood JD, Poole JP. Improving the reliability of speech audiometry. Br J Audiol 1977; 11: 93-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Burkle T, Kewley-Port D, Humes L, Lee J. Contribution of consonant versus vowel information to sentence intelligibility by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 115: 2601
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lawrence DL, Byers VW. Identification of voiceless fricatives by high frequency hearing impaired listeners. J Speech Hear Res 1969; 12: 426-434
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bilger RC, Wang MD. Consonant confusions in patients with sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res 1976; 19: 718-748
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Owens E. Consonant errors and remediation in sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Hear Disord 1978; 43: 331-347
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wang MD, Reed CM, Bilger RC. A comparison of the effects of filtering and sensorineural hearing loss on patients of consonant confusions. J Speech Hear Res 1978; 21: 5-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Dubno JR, Dirks DD. Evaluation of hearing-impaired listeners using a Nonsense-Syllable Test. I. Test reliability. J Speech Hear Res 1982; 25: 135-141
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Boothroyd A. Auditory perception of speech contrasts by subjects with sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res 1984; 27: 134-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Fabry DA, Van Tasell DJ. Masked and filtered simulation of hearing loss: effects on consonant recognition. J Speech Hear Res 1986; 29: 170-178
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Dreschler WA. Phonemic confusions in quiet and noise for the hearing-impaired. Audiology 1986; 25: 19-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Gordon-Salant S. Consonant recognition and confusion patterns among elderly hearing-impaired subjects. Ear Hear 1987; 8: 270-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Zurek PM, Delhorne LA. Consonant reception in noise by listeners with mild and moderate sensorineural hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 82: 1548-1559
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Boothroyd A, Nittrouer S. Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 84: 101-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Bronkhorst AW, Bosman AJ, Smoorenburg GF. A model for context effects in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 93: 499-509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Bronkhorst AW, Brand T, Wagener K. Evaluation of context effects in sentence recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111: 2874-2886
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Régnier MS, Allen JB. A method to identify noise-robust perceptual features: application for consonant /t/. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 123: 2801-2814
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Miller G, Nicely P. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. J Acoust Soc Am 1955; 27: 338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Allen J. How do humans process and recognize speech? Speech and audio processing. IEEE Transactions on 1994; 2: 567-577
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Han W. Methods for Robust Characterization of Consonant Perception in Hearing-Impaired Listeners [Ph.D. thesis]. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois; 2011
    Google Scholar