Paper detail

The effect of speech and noise levels on the quality perceived by cochlear implant and normal hearing listeners

Electrical hearing by cochlear implants (CIs) may be fundamentally different from acoustic hearing by normal-hearing (NH) listeners, presumably showing unequal speech quality perception in various noise environments. Noise reduction (NR) algorithms used in CI reduce the noise in favor of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), regardless of plausible accompanying distortions that may degrade the speech quality perception. To gain better understanding of CI speech quality perception, the present work aimed investigating speech quality perception in a diverse noise conditions, including factors of speech/noise levels, type of noise, and distortions caused by NR models. Fifteen NH and seven CI subjects participated in this study. Speech sentences were set to two different levels (65 and 75 dB SPL). Two types of noise (Cafeteria and Babble) at three levels (55, 65, and 75 dB SPL) were used. Sentences were processed using two NR algorithms to investigate the perceptual sensitivity of CI and NH listeners to the distortion. All sentences processed with the combinations of these sets were presented to CI and NH listeners, and they were asked to rate the sound quality of speech as they perceived. The effect of each factor on the perceived speech quality was investigated based on the group averaged quality rated by CI and NH listeners. Consistent with previous studies, CI listeners were not as sensitive as NH to the distortion made by NR algorithms. Statistical analysis showed that the speech level has significant effect on quality perception. At the same SNR, the quality of 65 dB speech was rated higher than that of 75 dB for CI users, but vice versa for NH listeners. Therefore, the present study showed that the perceived speech quality patterns were different between CI and NH listeners in terms of their sensitivity to distortion and speech level in complex listening environment.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.