220 likes | 339 Views
Vowel formant discrimination in high-fidelity speech by hearing-impaired listeners. Diane Kewley-Port, Chang Liu (also University at Buffalo,) T. Zachary Burkle Indiana University, SPHS. Presented at the Acoustical Society of America Meeting, Austin, TX, Nov. 11, 2003.
E N D
Vowel formant discrimination in high-fidelity speech by hearing-impaired listeners. Diane Kewley-Port, Chang Liu (also University at Buffalo,) T. Zachary Burkle Indiana University, SPHS Presented at the Acoustical Society of America Meeting, Austin, TX, Nov. 11, 2003.
Thanks to SPL Lab members • Larry Humes (Investigator) • Maureen Coughlin (Audiologist, ABD) • Kelley Anderson (Research Assistant) • Bill Mills (Programmer)
Formant Discrimination • Just noticeable difference between standard vowel and one with shifted formant. • Psychophysical procedures to determine thresholds formant frequency, DF (Hz). • For 10+ years, experiments have systematically varied conditions, phonetic context, F0, noise etc. • Purpose: Examine formant thresholds for hearing-impaired listeners (HI) in nearly natural speech, including sentences
High-Fidelity Speech • To preserve naturalness, use STRAIGHT (Kawahara et al., 1999) synthesis • Stimulus Samples for word “bad” • Sentence • Word (standard vowel) • Word (10% F1 increment, NH, optimal listening Weber Fraction = 1.5%)
Experimental Factors for HI study • Formant Frequency: / I E Q Ã / F1 & F2 • Audibility: 70 dB SPL partial vs. 95 dB SPL fully • Linguistic Context: isolated vowels, words, sentences • Sent + ID task: Sentence discrimination only vs. Sentence discrimination + ID
Hearing Impaired Listeners • 21 – 55 years old, N = 5 • Mild – moderate, high-frequency loss
Procedures • Day 1 Screening • Days 2-4 Training • Days 5-23 Testing • Linguistic Context (ISO, Word, Sent) and Sent + ID blocks randomized daily • 95 vs. 70 dB SPL levels fixed each day
Summary Threshold ResultsFactor Significant • Formant Frequency (8) Yes • Audibility (70 vs 95) No • Linguistic Context Yes (ISO, Word, Sent) • Sent + ID task No • Explain with figures
1) Formant Frequency 2)Audibility
Post-hocs, only DF word < DF Sent 3) Linguistic Context. Thresholds different • Why?
Thresholds Hi-Fi vs. Synthetic Speech • Richie, Kewley-Port, & Coughlin (2003) reported DF for isolated formant synthesized vowels (Syn) for HI • Liu & Kewley-Port (2003) report for NH no difference Hi-Fi and Syn for isolated vowels and words • Predict that thresholds for our Hi-Fi • vowels same as Syn vowels from Richie et al.
Summary • Formant discrimination by HI significantly effected by • Formant Frequency • Linguistic Context • Speech quality (Hi-Fi harder) • Surprising Hi-Fi threshold comparisons • Thresholds for softer sentences better than louder • Thresholds for words better than isolated vowels
Baseline Thresholds • Normal Hearing Listeners (NH) • Formant Synthesized (Syn) • Female Isolated (ISO) Vowels F1 & F2 • Four Vowels: / I E Q Ã /
Audibility versus Pathology • Vowels fully audible 70 dB NH, 95 dB HI DF2 elevated by 200 %