Abstract

Introduction: Temporal envelope cues and temporal fine structure cues are essential for perception of speech. However, tonal language employ more of TFS cues and non-tonal language employ envelope cues for perception. The native speakers of Kannada use envelope cues for speech perception. Perception might vary depending on the compression characteristics and the number of processing channels in hearing aid users. So, it is important to understand the effect of compression system and processing channels on perception of envelope cues.

Objective: To compare the perception of envelope cues: across different frequency bands; between syllabic and dual compression, between an eight channel and sixteen channel hearing aids, using hearing aid processed Kannada chimeric sentences.

Methods and Materials: Sentence identification task was carried out in thirty native adult Kannada speakers with normal hearing acuity. Stimuli used was hearing aid processed Kannada chimeric sentences prepared with standardised sentence identification test in the Kannada language through Hilbert transformation and processed using 2 hearing aids of eight and sixteen processing channels in syllabic and dual compression programs.

Results: Perception of envelope cues were not significantly different using chimeric sentences processed using syllabic and dual compression system, where as it was significantly different while using chimeric sentence processed using 8 and 16 channel hearing aids.

Conclusion: Dynamic characteristics of compression system such as fast and slow acting have no effect on perception of envelope cues in native Kannada speakers, whereas number of signal processing channels need to be considered while evaluating the perception of envelope cues.

Keywords: Fine Structure; Bands; Hearing Aid Signal Processing; Channels; Chimeras; Compression

References

1. Moore Brian CJ and Aleksander Sęk. “Sensitivity of the Human Auditory System to Temporal Fine Structure at High Frequencies”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America5 (2009): 3186-3193.
2. Smith Zachary M., et al. “Chimaeric Sounds Reveal Dichotomies in Auditory Perception”. Nature 6876 (2002): 87-90.
3. Swaminathan Jayaganesh and Michael G Heinz. “Psychophysiological Analyses Demonstrate the Importance of Neural Envelope Coding for Speech Perception in Noise”. Journal of Neuroscience5 (2012): 1747-1756.
4. Indu TS and N Devi. “Influence of Vocoder Frequency Bands on Perception of Malayalam Chimeric Sentence”. (Unpublished Master’s Dissertation), University of Mysuru, Mysuru (2015).
5. Naveen KC and N Devi. “Influence of Number of Frequency Bands on Perception of Kannada Chimeric Words and Sentences”. (Unpublished Master’s Dissertation), University of Mysuru, Mysuru (2017).
6. Kamala Sarathy and N Devi. “Effect of Syllabic and Dual Compression on Speech Identification Scores across Different Degrees of Hearing Loss”. Student Research at AIISH, Mysore (Article Based on Dissertation Done at AIISH) 8 (2010): 99-107.
7. Kumar Yadav Avilala Vijay., et al. “Effect of different compression procedures on aided speech identification scores in individuals with varying degrees of hearing loss”. Journal of the All India Institute of Speech and Hearing 30 (2011).
8. Stone Michael A., et al. “High-Rate Envelope Information in Many Channels Provides Resistance to Reduction of Speech Intelligibility Produced by Multi-Channel Fast-Acting Compression”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America5 (2009): 2155-2158.
9. Roy AK and K Rajalakshmi. “Speech Identification with Single Channel Multichannel and Channel-Free Hearing Aids”. (Unpublished Master’s Dissertation), University of Mysuru, Mysuru (2010).
10. Basavaraj V. “Ethical Guidelines for Bio-Behavioural Research”. Mysore: All India Institute of Speech and Hearing (2009).
11. Geetha Chinnaraj., et al. “Development and Standardisation of the Sentence Identification Test in the Kannada Language”. Journal of Hearing Science 01 (2014): 18-26.
12. Gilbert Gaëtan and Christian Lorenzi. “The Ability of Listeners to Use Recovered Envelope Cues from Speech Fine Structure”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America4 (2006): 2438-2444.
13. Leger Agnes C., et al. “The Role of Recovered Envelope Cues in the Identification of Temporal-Fine-Structure Speech for Hearing-Impaired Listeners”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America1 (2015): 505-508.

Citation

Citation: Devi Neelamegarajan., et al. “Comparison of Envelope Perception between Syllabic and Dual Compression Hearing Aid Processed Kannada Chimeric Sentences".Acta Scientific Otolaryngology 3.2 (2020): 83-89.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2020 Devi Neelamegarajan., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.