4.5 Article

Perceptual vowel spaces of cochlear implant users: Implications for the study of auditory adaptation to spectral shift

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
Volume 109, Issue 5, Pages 2135-2145

Publisher

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.1350403

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [DC00012, R01-DC00111, R01 DC003937, R01-DC03937, T32 DC000012, R01 DC000111] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cochlear implant (CI) users differ in their ability to perceive and recognize speech sounds. Two possible reasons for such individual differences may lie in their ability to discriminate formant frequencies or to adapt to the spectrally shifted information presented by cochlear implants, a basalward shift related to the implant's depth of insertion in the cochlea. In the present study, we examined these two alternatives using a method-of-adjustment (MOA) procedure with 330 synthetic vowel stimuli varying in F1 and F2 that were arranged in a two-dimensional grid. Subjects were asked to label the synthetic stimuli that matched ten monophthongal vowels in visually presented words. Subjects then provided goodness ratings for the stimuli they had chosen. The subjects' responses to all ten vowels were used to construct individual perceptual vowel spaces. If CI users fail to adapt completely to the basalward spectral shift, then the formant frequencies of their vowel categories should be shifted lower in both F1 and F2. However, with one exception, no systematic shifts were observed in the vowel spaces of CI users. Instead, the vowel spaces differed from one another in the relative size of their vowel categories. The results suggest that differences in formant frequency discrimination may account for the individual differences in vowel perception observed in cochlear implant users. (C) 2001 Acoustical Society of America.

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