Title |
Vibro-Tactile Enhancement of Speech Intelligibility in Multi-talker Noise for Simulated Cochlear Implant Listening
|
---|---|
Published in |
Trends in Hearing, September 2018
|
DOI | 10.1177/2331216518797838 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Mark D. Fletcher, Sean R. Mills, Tobias Goehring |
Abstract |
Many cochlear implant (CI) users achieve excellent speech understanding in acoustically quiet conditions but most perform poorly in the presence of background noise. An important contributor to this poor speech-in-noise performance is the limited transmission of low-frequency sound information through CIs. Recent work has suggested that tactile presentation of this low-frequency sound information could be used to improve speech-in-noise performance for CI users. Building on this work, we investigated whether vibro-tactile stimulation can improve speech intelligibility in multi-talker noise. The signal used for tactile stimulation was derived from the speech-in-noise using a computationally inexpensive algorithm. Eight normal-hearing participants listened to CI simulated speech-in-noise both with and without concurrent tactile stimulation of their fingertip. Participants' speech recognition performance was assessed before and after a training regime, which took place over 3 consecutive days and totaled around 30 min of exposure to CI-simulated speech-in-noise with concurrent tactile stimulation. Tactile stimulation was found to improve the intelligibility of speech in multi-talker noise, and this improvement was found to increase in size after training. Presentation of such tactile stimulation could be achieved by a compact, portable device and offer an inexpensive and noninvasive means for improving speech-in-noise performance in CI users. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 9 | 45% |
Austria | 2 | 10% |
Ireland | 1 | 5% |
Australia | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 7 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 14 | 70% |
Scientists | 4 | 20% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 74 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 20% |
Student > Master | 12 | 16% |
Researcher | 6 | 8% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
Other | 13 | 18% |
Unknown | 18 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Engineering | 11 | 15% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 14% |
Psychology | 10 | 14% |
Neuroscience | 7 | 9% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
Other | 12 | 16% |
Unknown | 22 | 30% |