ORIGINAL ARTICLE
COMPARISON OF TEMPORAL AND ENVELOPE CUES IN HEARING AIDS: USE OF MALAYALAM LANGUAGE CHIMERIC SENTENCES AND TWO COMPRESSION STRATEGIES
UDHAYAKUMAR R. 1, A-G  
,  
Devi N. 1, A-G  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, India
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
UDHAYAKUMAR R.   

Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and hearing, Mysuru-570 006, Karnataka, India, email: udhayakmr9@gmail.com, tel. +91 9677492363
Publication date: 2020-03-31
 
J Hear Sci 2020;10(1):33–40
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Objectives:
The human auditory system perceives any speech sound through the inherent temporal cues i.e., the temporal fine structure (TFS) and envelope (ENV) cues which has its own predominance for perception across languages. Research in English and Mandarin Chinese language showed the difference between these cues with tonal language employ more of TFS cues and non-tonal language employ ENV cues for perception. Earlier studies on Indian language (Kannada and Malayalam) revealed ENV cues predominance for perception. Based on this, the aim of this study was to compare stimuli in which the TFS and ENV cues had been interchanged (so-called auditory chimeras). The stimuli were Malayalam language sentences delivered through a hearing aid using two compression schemes – syllabic compression and dual compres-sion – and processed by a nonlinear 8-channel and 16-channel system.

Method:
Thirty-five normal hearing individuals were assessed for the perception of chimeric sentences across eight sets of frequency bands (1, 4, 6, 8, 16, 24, 32, and 64 bands). Before the administration of the chimeric sentences all the individuals were assessed for normal hearing abilities through routine audiological evaluations.

Results:
The results of the present study reveal there is a significant difference across frequency bands on both the syllabic and dual compression processed stimuli using either 8 or 16 channels. The ENV cues were better perceived whether 4, 6, 8, or 16 frequency bands were used, with dual compression being marginally better than syllabic compression for both 8 and 16 channels. However, 16 channels gave overall better perception than 8 channels.

Conclusions:
The results of the study revealed a better processing of envelope (ENV) cues, which are most important for understanding speech through a hearing aid.

 
REFERENCES (19)
1.
Moore BCJ, Sęk A. Sensitivity of the human auditory system to temporal fine structure at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am, 2009 May 6;125(5):3186–93.
 
2.
Rosen S. Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1992 Jun 29;336(1278):367–73.
 
3.
Joris PX, Yin TCT. Responses to amplitude‐modulated tones in the auditory nerve of the cat. J Acoust Soc Am, 1992 Jan 4;91(1):215–32.
 
4.
Rose JE, Brugge JF, Anderson DJ, Hind JE. Phase-locked response to low-frequency tones in single auditory nerve fibers of the squirrel monkey. J Neurophysiol, 1967 Jul;30(4):769–93.
 
5.
Lorenzi C, Gilbert G, Carn H, Garnier S, Moore BCJ. Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2006 Dec 5;103(49):18866–9.
 
6.
Licklider JCR, Pollack I. Effects of differentiation, integration, and infinite peak clipping upon the intelligibility of speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 1948 Jan 17;20(1):42–51.
 
7.
Bracewell R. The Fourier Transform and Its Applications. McGraw-Hill, New York; 1986.
 
8.
Loizou PC, Dorman M, Tu Z. On the number of channels needed to understand speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 1999 Oct;106(4):2097–103.
 
9.
Smith ZM, Delgutte B, Oxenham AJ. Chimeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature, 2002 Mar 7;416(6876):87–90.
 
10.
Stone MA, Füllgrabe C, Moore BCJ. Benefit of high-rate envelope cues in vocoder processing: effect of number of channels and spectral region. J Acoust Soc Am, 2008 Oct 15;124(4):2272–82.
 
11.
Heinz MG, Swaminathan J. Quantifying envelope and fine-structure coding in auditory nerve responses to chimeric speech. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2009 Sep 14;10(3):407–23.
 
12.
Indu TS, Devi N. Influence of Vocoder Frequency Bands on Perception of Malayalam Chimeric Sentence. Unpublished student research at AIISH, University of Mysuru; 2015.
 
13.
Naveen CP, Devi N. Influence of number of frequency bands on perception of Kannada chimeric words and sentences. Unpublished student research at AIISH, University of Mysore; 2016.
 
14.
Geetha C, Manjula P. Effect of syllabic and dual compression on speech identification scores. All India Inst Speech Hear, 2005;3:57–66.
 
15.
Sreeraj K, Kishore T. Sentence Lists in Malayalam and Telugu. Unpublished AIISH funded research at AIISH, University of Mysore; 2013.
 
16.
Venkatesan S. Ethical Guidelines for Bio-behavioral Research Involving Human Subjects. All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangothri, Mysore, 2009. Available from http://www.aiishmysore.in/en/p....
 
17.
Gilbert G, Lorenzi C. The ability of listeners to use recovered envelope cues from speech fine structure. J Acoust Soc Am, 2006;119(4):2438–44.
 
18.
Merin M, Devi N. Effect of Syllabic and Dual Compression in Linear and Non-Linear Hearing Aid Processed Music. Unpublished student research at AIISH, University of Mysore; 2014.
 
19.
Neuman AC, Bakke MH, Mackersie C, Hellman S, Levitt H. Effect of release time in compression hearing aids: paired‐comparison judgments of quality. J Acoust Soc Am, 1995 Dec 4;98(6):3182–7.
 
eISSN:2084-3127
ISSN:2083-389X