Advertisement

Gender Categorization Is Abnormal in Cochlear Implant Users

  • Christina D. Fuller
  • Etienne Gaudrain
  • Jeanne N. Clarke
  • John J. Galvin
  • Qian-Jie Fu
  • Rolien H. Free
  • Deniz Başkent
Research Article

Abstract

In normal hearing (NH), the perception of the gender of a speaker is strongly affected by two anatomically related vocal characteristics: the fundamental frequency (F0), related to vocal pitch, and the vocal tract length (VTL), related to the height of the speaker. Previous studies on gender categorization in cochlear implant (CI) users found that performance was variable, with few CI users performing at the level of NH listeners. Data collected with recorded speech produced by multiple talkers suggests that CI users might rely more on F0 and less on VTL than NH listeners. However, because VTL cannot be accurately estimated from recordings, it is difficult to know how VTL contributes to gender categorization. In the present study, speech was synthesized to systematically vary F0, VTL, or both. Gender categorization was measured in CI users, as well as in NH participants listening to unprocessed (only synthesized) and vocoded (and synthesized) speech. Perceptual weights for F0 and VTL were derived from the performance data. With unprocessed speech, NH listeners used both cues (normalized perceptual weight: F0 = 3.76, VTL = 5.56). With vocoded speech, NH listeners still made use of both cues but less efficiently (normalized perceptual weight: F0 = 1.68, VTL = 0.63). CI users relied almost exclusively on F0 while VTL perception was profoundly impaired (normalized perceptual weight: F0 = 6.88, VTL = 0.59). As a result, CI users’ gender categorization was abnormal compared to NH listeners. Future CI signal processing should aim to improve the transmission of both F0 cues and VTL cues, as a normal gender categorization may benefit speech understanding in competing talker situations.

Keywords

cochlear implants gender categorization fundamental frequency vocal tract length vocal characteristics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the participants in this study. Furthermore, we would like to thank Joeri Smit and Karin van der Velde for their help with collecting the data, as well as Anita Wagner for her advice regarding statistical methods. The fourth author is supported by a NIH R01-DC004792 grant. The sixth author is supported by an otological/neurotological stipendium from the Heinsius-Houbolt Foundation. The last author is supported by a Rosalind Franklin Fellowship from the University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen and the VIDI grant 016.096.397 from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). The study is part of the research program of our department: Healthy Aging and Communication.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest regarding this manuscript.

References

  1. Anderson ES, Nelson DA, Kreft H, Nelson PB, Oxenham AJ (2011) Comparing spatial tuning curves, spectral ripple resolution, and speech perception in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 130:364–375. doi: 10.1121/1.3589255 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2013) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. http://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4. Version 1.1-6
  3. Bosman AJ, Smoorenburg GF (1995) Intelligibility of Dutch CVC syllables and sentences for listeners with normal hearing and with three types of hearing impairment. Audiology 34:260–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brungart DS (2001) Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am 109:1101–1109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Churchill TH, Kan A, Goupell MJ, Ihlefeld A, Litovsky RY (2014) Speech perception in noise with a harmonic complex excited vocoder. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 15:265–278. doi: 10.1007/s10162-013-0435-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke J., Gaudrain E., Chatterjee M., Başkent D (2014) T’ain’t the way you say it, it’s what you say—perceptual continuity and top-down restoration of speech. Hear Res, 315:80–387.Google Scholar
  7. Darwin CJ, Brungart DS, Simpson BD (2003) Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am 114:2913–2922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fant G (1970) Acoustic theory of speech production. Walter de Gruyter, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  9. Festen JM, Plomp R (1990) Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 88:1725–1736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fitch WT, Giedd J (1999) Morphology and development of the human vocal tract: a study using magnetic resonance imaging. J Acoust Soc Am 106:1511–1522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fitzsimons M, Sheahan N, Staunton H (2001) Gender and the integration of acoustic dimensions of prosody: implications for clinical studies. Brain Lang 78:94–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Başkent D, Wang X (2001) Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 110:1150–1163Google Scholar
  13. Fu QJ, Chinchilla S, Galvin JJ III (2004) The role of spectral and temporal cues in voice gender discrimination by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 5:253–260PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fu QJ, Chinchilla S, Nogaki G, Galvin JJ III (2005) Voice gender identification by cochlear implant users: the role of spectral and temporal resolution. J Acoust Soc Am 118:1711–1718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuller CD, Free RH, Maat B, Başkent D (2012) Musical background not associated with self-perceived hearing performance or speech perception in postlingual cochlear-implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 132:1009–1016. doi: 10.1121/1.4730910 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuller CD, Galvin JJ III, Free RH, Başkent D (2014) Musician effect in cochlear implant simulated gender categorization. J Acoust Soc Am 135:EL159–EL165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenwood DD (1990) A cochlear frequency‐position function for several species—29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am 87:2592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holmberg EB, Hillman RE, Perkell JS (1988) Glottal airflow and transglottal air pressure measurements for male and female speakers in soft, normal, and loud voice. J Acoust Soc Am 84:511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jaeger TF (2008) Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. J Mem Lang 59:434–446. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kawahara H, Masuda-Katsuse I, de Cheveigné A (1999) Restructuring speech representations using a pitch-adaptive time–frequency smoothing and an instantaneous-frequency-based F0 extraction: possible role of a repetitive structure in sounds. Speech Commun 27:187–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kovačić D, Balaban E (2009) Voice gender perception by cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am 126:762–775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kovačić D, Balaban E (2010) Hearing history influences voice gender perceptual performance in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 31:806–814PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lammert A, Proctor M, Narayanan S (2013) Morphological variation in the adult hard palate and posterior pharyngeal wall. J Speech Lang Hear Res 56:521–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laneau J, Wouters J (2004) Multichannel place pitch sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 5:285–294. doi: 10.1007/s10162-004-4049-y PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luo X, Fu QJ, Wu HP, Hsu CJ (2009) Concurrent-vowel and tone recognition by Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users. Hear Res 256:75–84PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mackersie CL, Dewey J, Guthrie LA (2011) Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length cues on sentence segregation by listeners with hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 130:1006–1019. doi: 10.1121/1.3605548 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Massida Z, Marx M, Belin P et al (2013) Gender categorization in cochlear implant users. J Speech Lang Hear Res 56:1389–1401. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0132) PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moore BC, Carlyon RP (2005) Perception of pitch by people with cochlear hearing loss and by cochlear implant users. In: Pitch. Springer, pp 234-277Google Scholar
  29. Patterson RD, Gaudrain E, Walters TC (2010) The perception of family and register in musical notes. In: Jones MR, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Music perception, 1st Edition. Springer, pp 13–50Google Scholar
  30. Peng S-C, Lu N, Chatterjee M (2009) Effects of cooperating and conflicting cues on speech intonation recognition by cochlear implant users and normal hearing listeners. Audiol Neurotol 14:327–337. doi: 10.1159/000212112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peterson GE, Barney HL (1952) Control methods used in a study of the vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 24:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rogers CF, Healy EW, Montgomery AA (2006) Sensitivity to isolated and concurrent intensity and fundamental frequency increments by cochlear implant users under natural listening conditions. J Acoust Soc Am 119:2276–2287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Skuk VG, Schweinberger SR (2013) Influences of fundamental frequency, formant frequencies, aperiodicity and spectrum level on the perception of voice gender. J Speech Lang Hear Res. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0314)Google Scholar
  34. Smith DR, Patterson RD (2005) The interaction of glottal-pulse rate and vocal-tract length in judgements of speaker size, sex, and age. J Acoust Soc Am 118:3177–3186PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith DR, Walters TC, Patterson RD (2007) Discrimination of speaker sex and size when glottal-pulse rate and vocal-tract length are controlled. J Acoust Soc Am 122:3628–3639PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stickney GS, Zeng F, Litovsky R, Assmann P (2004) Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. J Acoust Soc Am 116:1081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Borsel J, Janssens J, De Bodt M (2009) Breathiness as a feminine voice characteristic: a perceptual approach. J Voice 23:291–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilkinson EP, Abdel-Hamid O, Galvin JJ III, Jiang H, Fu QJ (2013) Voice conversion in cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 123(Suppl 3):S29–S43PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT et al (1991) Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 352:236–238. doi: 10.1038/352236a0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Won JH, Drennan WR, Rubinstein JT (2007) Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8:384–392. doi: 10.1007/s10162-007-0085-8 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Research in Otolaryngology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina D. Fuller
    • 1
    • 3
  • Etienne Gaudrain
    • 1
    • 3
  • Jeanne N. Clarke
    • 1
    • 3
  • John J. Galvin
    • 2
  • Qian-Jie Fu
    • 2
  • Rolien H. Free
    • 1
    • 3
  • Deniz Başkent
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Otorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center GroningenUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.David Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Head and Neck SurgeryUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.University of GroningenGraduate School of Medical Sciences, Research School of Behavioral and Cognitive NeurosciencesGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations