4.5 Article

Accommodation of gender-related phonetic differences by listeners with cochlear implants and in a variety of vocoder simulations

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
Volume 147, Issue 1, Pages 174-190

Publisher

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/10.0000566

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH-NIDCD [R03 DC014309, R01 DC 004786, R01 DC003083, P30 HD03352]
  2. University of Maryland Center for Comparative and Evolutionary Biology of Hearing Training Grant [T32 DC000046-17]
  3. NIH division of loan repayment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Speech perception requires accommodation of a wide range of acoustic variability across talkers. A classic example is the perception of sh and s fricative sounds, which are categorized according to spectral details of the consonant itself, and also by the context of the voice producing it. Because women's and men's voices occupy different frequency ranges, a listener is required to make a corresponding adjustment of acoustic-phonetic category space for these phonemes when hearing different talkers. This pattern is commonplace in everyday speech communication, and yet might not be captured in accuracy scores for whole words, especially when word lists are spoken by a single talker. Phonetic accommodation for fricatives s and sh was measured in 20 cochlear implant (CI) users and in a variety of vocoder simulations, including those with noise carriers with and without peak picking, simulated spread of excitation, and pulsatile carriers. CI listeners showed strong phonetic accommodation as a group. Each vocoder produced phonetic accommodation except the 8-channel noise vocoder, despite its historically good match with CI users in word intelligibility. Phonetic accommodation is largely independent of linguistic factors and thus might offer information complementary to speech intelligibility tests which are partially affected by language processing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available