4.5 Article

Faciliation of Mandarin tone perception by visual speech in clear and degraded audio: Implications for cochlear implants

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
卷 131, 期 2, 页码 1480-1489

出版社

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.3672703

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cochlear Ltd.
  2. Australian Research Council [LP0562532]
  3. Australian Research Council [LP0562532] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cochlear implant (CI) users in tone language environments report great difficulty in perceiving lexical tone. This study investigated the augmentation of simulated cochlear implant audio by visual (facial) speech information for tone. Native speakers of Mandarin and Australian English were asked to discriminate between minimal pairs of Mandarin tones in five conditions: Auditory-Only, Auditory-Visual, CI-simulated Auditory-Only, CI-simulated Auditory-Visual, and Visual-Only (silent video). Discrimination in CI-simulated audio conditions was poor compared with normal audio, and varied according to tone pair, with tone pairs with strong non-F0 cues discriminated the most easily. The availability of visual speech information also improved discrimination in the CI-simulated audio conditions, particularly on tone pairs with strong durational cues. In the silent Visual-Only condition, both Mandarin and Australian English speakers discriminated tones above chance levels. Interestingly, tone-naive listeners outperformed native listeners in the Visual-Only condition, suggesting firstly that visual speech information for tone is available, and may in fact be under-used by normal-hearing tone language perceivers, and secondly that the perception of such information may be language-general, rather than the product of language-specific learning. This may find application in the development of methods to improve tone perception in CI users in tone language environments. (C) 2012 Acoustical Society of America. [DOI: 10.1121/1.3672703]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据