Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33795617›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Individual Variability in Recalibrating to Spectrally Shifted Speech: Implications for Cochlear Implants.

Michael L Smith, Matthew B Winn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. How to vocode: Using channel vocoders for cochlear-implant research.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michael L SmithDepartment of Speech & Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Matthew B WinnDepartment of Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Funding

Listening effort in cochlear implant usersR01DC017114 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI Matthew Brandon Winn · 2018 to 2026
$3.4M
Measuring listening effort and spectral resolution in cochlear implant patientsR03DC014309 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI WINN, MATTHEW BRANDON · 2016 to 2018
$455k
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC017114NIDCD NIH HHS R03 DC014309
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCochlear implant (CI) recipients are at a severe disadvantage compared with normal-hearing listeners in distinguishing consonants that differ by place of articulation because the key relevant spectral differences are degraded by the implant. One component of that degradation is the upward shifting of spectral energy that occurs with a shallow insertion depth of a CI. The present study aimed to systematically measure the effects of spectral shifting on word recognition and phoneme categorization by specifically controlling the amount of shifting and using stimuli whose identification specifically depends on perceiving frequency cues. We hypothesized that listeners would be biased toward perceiving phonemes that contain higher-frequency components because of the upward frequency shift and that intelligibility would decrease as spectral shifting increased.

designNormal-hearing listeners (n = 15) heard sine wave-vocoded speech with simulated upward frequency shifts of 0, 2, 4, and 6 mm of cochlear space to simulate shallow CI insertion depth. Stimuli included monosyllabic words and /b/-/d/ and /∫/-/s/ continua that varied systematically by formant frequency transitions or frication noise spectral peaks, respectively. Recalibration to spectral shifting was operationally defined as shifting perceptual acoustic-phonetic mapping commensurate with the spectral shift. In other words, adjusting frequency expectations for both phonemes upward so that there is still a perceptual distinction, rather than hearing all upward-shifted phonemes as the higher-frequency member of the pair.

resultsFor moderate amounts of spectral shifting, group data suggested a general "halfway" recalibration to spectral shifting, but individual data suggested a notably different conclusion: half of the listeners were able to recalibrate fully, while the other halves of the listeners were utterly unable to categorize shifted speech with any reliability. There were no participants who demonstrated a pattern intermediate to these two extremes. Intelligibility of words decreased with greater amounts of spectral shifting, also showing loose clusters of better- and poorer-performing listeners. Phonetic analysis of word errors revealed certain cues were more susceptible to being compromised due to a frequency shift (place and manner of articulation), while voicing was robust to spectral shifting.

conclusionsShifting the frequency spectrum of speech has systematic effects that are in line with known properties of speech acoustics, but the ensuing difficulties cannot be predicted based on tonotopic mismatch alone. Difficulties are subject to substantial individual differences in the capacity to adjust acoustic-phonetic mapping. These results help to explain why speech recognition in CI listeners cannot be fully predicted by peripheral factors like electrode placement and spectral resolution; even among listeners with functionally equivalent auditory input, there is an additional factor of simply being able or unable to flexibly adjust acoustic-phonetic mapping. This individual variability could motivate precise treatment approaches guided by an individual's relative reliance on wideband frequency representation (even if it is mismatched) or limited frequency coverage whose tonotopy is preserved.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsSpeech PerceptionHumansReproducibility of ResultsSpeech

Identifiers

PMID33795617
PMCPMC8387328

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.