PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Gail S Donaldson

Publications and source records attributed to Gail S Donaldson.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Effects of vowel context on the recognition of initial and medial consonants by cochlear implant users.

OBJECTIVE: Scores on consonant-recognition tests are widely used as an index of speech-perception ability in cochlear implant (CI) users. The consonant stimuli in these tests are typically presented in the /alpha/ vowel context, even though consonants in conversational speech occur in many other contexts. For this reason, it would be useful to know whether vowel context has any systematic effect on consonant recognition in this population. The purpose of the present study was to compare consonant recognition for the /alpha, i/, and /u/ vowel contexts for consonants presented in both initial (Cv) and medial (vCv) positions. DESIGN: Twenty adult CI users with one of three different implanted devices underwent consonant-confusion testing. Twelve stimulus conditions that differed according to vowel context (/alpha, i, u/), consonant position (Cv, vCv), and talker gender (male, female) were assessed in each subject. RESULTS: Mean percent-correct consonant-recognition scores were slightly (5 to 8%) higher for the /alpha/ and /u/ vowel contexts than for the /i/ vowel context for both initial and medial consonants. This general pattern was observed for both male and female talkers, for subjects with better and poorer average consonant-recognition performance, and for subjects using low, medium, and high stimulation rates in their speech processors. In contrast to the mean data, many individual subjects demonstrated large effects of vowel context. For 10 of 20 subjects, consonant-recognition scores varied by 15% or more across vowel contexts in one or more stimulus conditions. Similar to the mean data, these differences generally reflected better performance for the /alpha/ and /u/ vowel contexts than for the /i/ vowel context. An analysis of consonant features showed that overall performance was best for the voicing feature, followed by the manner and place features, and that the place feature showed the strongest effect of vowel context. Vowel-context effects were strongest for the six consonants /d, j, n, k, m/, and /l/. For three of these consonants (/j, n, k/), the back vowels /alpha/ and /u/ produced substantially (30 to 35%) higher mean scores than the front vowel /i/. For each of the remaining three consonants, a unique pattern was observed in which a different single vowel produced substantially higher scores than the others. Several additional consonants (/s, g, w, b/, and /d/) showed strong context effects in either the initial consonant or medial consonant position. Overall, voiceless stop, nasal, and glide-liquid consonants showed the strongest effects of vowel context, whereas the voiceless fricative and voiceless affricate consonants were least affected. Consistent with the feature analysis, a qualitative assessment of phoneme errors for the six key consonants indicated that vowel-context effects stem primarily from changes in the number of place-of-articulation errors made in each context. CONCLUSIONS: Vowel context has small but significant effects on consonant-recognition scores for the "average" CI listener, with the back vowels /alpha/ and /u/ producing better performance than the front vowel /i/. In contrast to the average results, however, the effects of vowel context are sizable in some individual subjects. This suggests that it may be beneficial to assess consonant recognition using two vowels, such as /alpha/ and /i/, which produce better and poorer performance, respectively. The present results underscore previous findings that poor transmission of spectral speech cues limits consonant-recognition performance in CI users. Spectral cue transmission may be hindered not only by poor spectral resolution in these listeners but also by the brief duration and dynamic nature of consonant place-of-articulation cues.

Acoustic Stimulation↗
PubMed2005

Place-pitch discrimination of single- versus dual-electrode stimuli by cochlear implant users (L).

Simultaneous or near-simultaneous activation of adjacent cochlear implant electrodes can produce pitch percepts intermediate to those produced by each electrode separately, thereby increasing the number of place-pitch steps available to cochlear implant listeners. To estimate how many distinct pitches could be generated with simultaneous dual-electrode stimulation, the present study measured place-pitch discrimination thresholds for single- versus dual-electrode stimuli in users of the Clarion CII device. Discrimination thresholds were expressed as the proportion of current directed to the secondary electrode of the dual-electrode pair. For 16 of 17 electrode pairs tested in six subjects, thresholds ranged from 0.11 to 0.64, suggesting that dual-electrode stimuli can produce 2-9 discriminable pitches between the pitches of single electrodes. Some subjects demonstrated a level effect, with better place-pitch discrimination at higher stimulus levels. Equal loudness was achieved with dual-electrode stimuli at net current levels that were similar to or slightly higher than those for single-electrode stimuli.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Effects of pulse rate and electrode array design on intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users.

The effects of pulse rate on intensity discrimination were evaluated in 14 subjects with Clarion C-I cochlear implants. Subjects had a standard [Clarion spiral electrode array (SPRL group)] or perimodiolar electrode array [Clarion HiFocus electrode array with electrode positioning system (HF+EPS group)]. Weber fractions for intensity discrimination [ Wf(dB)= 10 log deltaI/I] were evaluated at five levels over dynamic range at each of three pulse rates (200, 1625 and 6500 pps) using monopolar stimulation. Weber fractions were smaller for 200 pps stimuli than for 1625 or 6500 pps stimuli in both groups. Weber fractions were significantly smaller for SPRL subjects (mean Wf(dB) = -9.1 dB) than for HF+EPS subjects (mean Wf(dB) = -6.7 dB). Intensity difference limens (DLs) expressed as a percentage of dynamic range (DR) (deltaI%DR= deltaI/DRdB* 100) did not vary systematically with pulse rate in either group. Larger intensity DLs combined with smaller dynamic ranges led to fewer intensity steps over the dynamic range for HF+EPS subjects (average 9 steps) compared to SPRL subjects (average 23 steps). The observed effects of pulse rate and electrode array design may stem primarily from an inverse relationship between absolute current amplitude and the size of intensity DLs. The combination of smaller dynamic ranges and larger Weber fractions in HF+EPS subjects could be the result of increased variability of neural outputs in these subjects.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Effects of presentation level on phoneme and sentence recognition in quiet by cochlear implant listeners.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to characterize the effects of presentation level on speech recognition in quiet by cochlear implant users with the Nucleus 22 SPEAK and Clarion v1.2 CIS speech-processing strategies, and to relate speech recognition at low presentation levels to stimulus audibility as measured by sound field thresholds. It was hypothesized that speech recognition performance in both Nucleus SPEAK and Clarion CIS participants would decrease as presentation level was decreased below 50 to 60 dBA, due to audibility limitations. However, it was expected that such level effects would be less severe in CIS participants than in SPEAK participants because the Clarion v1.2 device encodes a wider acoustic dynamic range (up to 60 dB) than the Nucleus 22 device (30 dB). DESIGN: Performance-intensity (P-I) functions for vowels, consonants and sentences in quiet were obtained from each participant. P-I functions incorporated speech levels of 70, 60, 50, 40 and 30 dBA. Subjects used their clinical speech processor maps and adjusted the loudness (volume/sensitivity) controls on their processors so that speech presented at 60 dBA was comfortably loud. Maps were created using default clinical procedures and were not adjusted to optimize sound field thresholds. Sound field thresholds and dynamic ranges were measured for warbled pure tones with frequencies of 250 to 6000 Hz. RESULTS: Consonant and sentence recognition showed strong level effects for both SPEAK and CIS participants, with performance decreasing substantially at levels below 50 dBA in most individuals. Vowel recognition showed weaker level effects. For all three speech materials, SPEAK and CIS participants demonstrated similar mean performance at 70 dBA; however, SPEAK participants showed larger reductions in performance than CIS participants with decreasing level. Sound field thresholds were more sensitive for CIS participants than for SPEAK participants, supporting the hypothesis that performance differences were related to audibility. CONCLUSIONS: Cochlear implant listeners are unable to maintain good speech recognition at low presentation levels due to reduced stimulus audibility, and this may significantly limit their ability to communicate in daily life. It is likely that audibility differences between SPEAK and CIS participants in the present study can be attributed at least partly to differences in the acoustic dynamic range used by the respective processors. However, several additional factors may have contributed to differences in audibility and perception of soft speech among individual listeners with both devices. These include the minimum and maximum electrical stimulation levels specified in participants' maps and the speech processor sensitivity setting used for testing.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Patterns of phoneme perception errors by listeners with cochlear implants as a function of overall speech perception ability.

Many studies have noted great variability in speech perception ability among postlingually deafened adults with cochlear implants. This study examined phoneme misperceptions for 30 cochlear implant listeners using either the Nucleus-22 or Clarion version 1.2 device to examine whether listeners with better overall speech perception differed qualitatively from poorer listeners in their perception of vowel and consonant features. In the first analysis, simple regressions were used to predict the mean percent-correct scores for consonants and vowels for the better group of listeners from those of the poorer group. A strong relationship between the two groups was found for consonant identification, and a weak, nonsignificant relationship was found for vowel identification. In the second analysis, it was found that less information was transmitted for consonant and vowel features to the poorer listeners than to the better listeners; however, the pattern of information transmission was similar across groups. Taken together, results suggest that the performance difference between the two groups is primarily quantitative. The results underscore the importance of examining individuals' perception of individual phoneme features when attempting to relate speech perception to other predictor variables.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

Intensity discrimination and increment detection in cochlear-implant users.

Intensity difference limens (DLs) were measured in users of the Nucleus 22 and Clarion v1.2 cochlear implants and in normal-hearing listeners to better understand mechanisms of intensity discrimination in electric and acoustic hearing and to evaluate the possible role of neural adaptation. Intensity DLs were measured for three modes of presentation: gated (intensity increments gated synchronously with the pedestal), fringe (intensity increments delayed 250 or 650 ms relative to the onset of the pedestal), and continuous (intensity increments occur in the presence of a pedestal that is played throughout the experimental run). Stimuli for cochlear-implant listeners were trains of biphasic pulses; stimuli for normal-hearing listeners were a 1-kHz tone and a wideband noise. Clarion cochlear-implant listeners showed level-dependent effects of presentation mode. At low pedestal levels, gated thresholds were generally similar to thresholds obtained in the fringe and continuous conditions. At higher pedestal levels, however, the fringe and continuous conditions produced smaller intensity DLs than the gated condition, similar to the gated-continuous difference in intensity DLs observed in acoustic hearing. Nucleus cochlear-implant listeners did not show consistent threshold differences for the gated and fringe conditions, and were not tested in the continuous condition. It is not clear why a difference between gated and fringe thresholds occurred for the Clarion but not the Nucleus subjects. Normal-hearing listeners showed improved thresholds for the continuous condition relative to the gated condition, but the effect was larger for the 1-kHz tonal carrier than for the noise carrier. Findings suggest that adaptation occurring central to the inner hair cell synapse mediates the gated-continuous difference observed in Clarion cochlear-implant listeners and may also contribute to the gated-continuous difference in acoustic hearing.

Acoustic Stimulation↗
PubMed2002

Psychophysical recovery from pulse-train forward masking in electric hearing.

Psychophysical pulse-train forward-masking (PTFM) recovery functions were measured in fifteen subjects with the Nucleus mini-22 cochlear implant and six subjects with the Clarion cochlear implant. Masker and probe stimuli were 500-Hz trains of 200- or 77-micros/phase biphasic current pulses. Electrode configurations were bipolar for Nucleus subjects and monopolar for Clarion subjects. Masker duration was 320 ms. Probe duration was either 10 ms or 30 ms. Recovery functions were measured for a high-level masker on a middle electrode in all 21 subjects, on apical and basal electrodes in 7 of the Nucleus and 3 of the Clarion subjects, and for multiple masker levels on the middle electrode in 8 Nucleus subjects and 6 Clarion subjects. Recovery functions were described by an exponential process in which threshold shift (in microA) decreased exponentially with increasing time delay between the offset of the masker pulse train and the offset of the probe pulse train. All but 3 of the 21 subjects demonstrated recovery time constants on a middle electrode that were less than 95 ms. The mean time constant for these 18 subjects was 54 ms (s.d. 17 ms). Three other subjects tested on three electrodes exhibited time constants larger than 95 ms from an apical electrode only. Growth-of-masking slopes depended upon time delay, as expected from an exponential recovery process, i.e., progressively shallower slopes were observed at time delays of 10 ms and 50 ms. Recovery of threshold shift (in microA) for PTFM in electrical hearing behaves inthe same way as recovery of threshold shift (in dB) for pure-tone forward masking in acoustic hearing. This supports the concept that linear microamps are the electrical equivalent of acoustic decibels. Recovery from PTFM was not related to speech recognition in a simple manner. Three subjects with prolonged PTFM recovery demonstrated poor speech scores. The remaining subjects with apparently normal PTFM recovery demonstrated speech scores ranging from poor to excellent. Findings suggest that normal PTFM recovery is only one of several factors associated with good speech recognition in cochlear-implant listeners. Comparisons of recovery curves for 10- and 30-ms probe durations in two subjects showed little or no temporal integration at time delays less than 95 ms where recovery functions have steep slopes. The same subjects exhibited large amounts of temporal integration at longer time delays where recovery slopes are more gradual. This suggests that probe detection depends primarily on detection of the final pulses in the probe stimulus and supports the use of offset-to-offset time delays for characterizing PTFM recovery in electric hearing.

Adult↗