Individual Variability of Hearing-Impaired Consonant Perception

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
• 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
• 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
• 4 Jongman A, Wayland R, Wong S. Acoustic characteristics of English fricatives. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 108 (3 Pt 1) 1252-1263
• 5 Kurowski K, Blumstein SE. Acoustic properties for place of articulation in nasal consonants. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 81: 1917-1927
• 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
• 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
• 8 Phatak SA, Allen JB. Consonant and vowel confusions in speech-weighted noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121: 2312-2326
• 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
• 10 Skinner M. Speech intelligibility in noise-induced hearing loss: effects of high-frequency compensation. Doctoral Dissertation; 1976
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 14 Roeser R, Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H. Audiology: Diagnosis. New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers; 2007
• 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
• 16 Walden BE, Montgomery AA. Dimensions of consonant perception in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Speech Hear Res 1975; 18: 444-455
• 17 Killion M, Niquette P. What can the pure-tone audiogram tell us about a patients SNR loss. Hear J 2000; 53: 46-53
• 18 Mines MA, Hanson BF, Shoup JE. Frequency of occurrence of phonemes in conversational English. Lang Speech 1978; 21: 221-241
• 19 Hood JD, Poole JP. Improving the reliability of speech audiometry. Br J Audiol 1977; 11: 93-101
• 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
• 21 Lawrence DL, Byers VW. Identification of voiceless fricatives by high frequency hearing impaired listeners. J Speech Hear Res 1969; 12: 426-434
• 22 Bilger RC, Wang MD. Consonant confusions in patients with sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res 1976; 19: 718-748
• 23 Owens E. Consonant errors and remediation in sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Hear Disord 1978; 43: 331-347
• 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
• 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
• 26 Boothroyd A. Auditory perception of speech contrasts by subjects with sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res 1984; 27: 134-144
• 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
• 28 Dreschler WA. Phonemic confusions in quiet and noise for the hearing-impaired. Audiology 1986; 25: 19-28
• 29 Gordon-Salant S. Consonant recognition and confusion patterns among elderly hearing-impaired subjects. Ear Hear 1987; 8: 270-276
• 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
• 31 Boothroyd A, Nittrouer S. Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 84: 101-114
• 32 Bronkhorst AW, Bosman AJ, Smoorenburg GF. A model for context effects in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 93: 499-509
• 33 Bronkhorst AW, Brand T, Wagener K. Evaluation of context effects in sentence recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111: 2874-2886
• 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
• 35 Miller G, Nicely P. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. J Acoust Soc Am 1955; 27: 338
• 36 Allen J. How do humans process and recognize speech? Speech and audio processing. IEEE Transactions on 1994; 2: 567-577
• 37 Han W. Methods for Robust Characterization of Consonant Perception in Hearing-Impaired Listeners [Ph.D. thesis]. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois; 2011