Development of the A§E test battery for assessment of pitch perception in speech

References

• ‘t Hart J., Collier R., Cohen A. 1990. A Perceptual Study of Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alfano I. 2006. La percezione dell'accento lessicale: un test sull'italiano a confronto con lo spagnolo. Proceedings of 2nd AISV. p. 632–656.
   Google Scholar
• Assmann P.F. 1999. Fundamental frequency and the intelligibility of competing voices. Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. p. 179–182.
   Google Scholar
• Avram A. 1970. Sur le role de la fréquence dans la perception de l'accent en roumain. Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences Prague 1967. p. 137–139.
   Google Scholar
• Bachorowski J.A., Owren M. 1999. Acoustic correlates of talker sex and individual talker identity are present in a short vowel segment produced in running speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102: 1054–1063.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry J.G., Blamey P.J., Martin L.F.A., Lee K.Y.S., Tang T., Ming Y.Y., Van Hasselt C.A. 2002. Tone discrimination in Cantonese-speaking children using a cochlear implant. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 16: 79–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertinetto P.M. 1980. The perception of stress by Italian speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 8: 385–395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boersma P., Weenink D. 2008. Praat: doing phonetics by computer, http://www.praat.org.
   Google Scholar
• Brokx J.P.L., Nooteboom S.G. 1982. Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices. Journal of Phonetics, 10: 23–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buss E., Hall J.W., Grose J.H. 2004. Temporal fine-structure cues to speech and pure tone modulation in observers with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear and Hearing, 25(3): 242–250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campione E., Véronis J. 1998. A statistical study of pitch target points in five languages. Proceedings of ICSLP, 1391–1394.
   Google Scholar
• Carrell T.D., Smith L.B., Pisoni D. 1981. Some perceptual dependencies in speeded classification of vowel color and pitch. Perception and Psychophysics, 29: 1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatterjee M., Peng S. 2008. Processing F0 with cochlear implants: modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition. Hearing Research, 235: 143–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung B.J., Hall J.W., Buss E., Grose J.H., Pillsbury H.C. 2004. Menière's disease: effects of glycerol on tasks involving temporal processing. Audiology and Neurotology, 9: 115–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciocca V., Francis A.L., Aisha R., Wong L. 2002. The perception of Cantonese lexical tones by early-deafened cochlear implantees. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111: 2250–2256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler A. 2007. Lexical stress. In: , Pisoni D., Remez R. (eds), The Handbook of Speech Perception. Blackwell Publishing. p. 264–289.
   Google Scholar
• Dorman M.F., Gifford R.H., Spahr A.J., McKarns S.A. 2008. The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies. Audiology and Neurotology, 13: 105–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fry D.B. 1958. Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech, 1: 126–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz B.J., Turner C.W. 2003. Combining acoustic and electrical hearing. The Laryngoscope, 113: 1726–1730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz B.J., Turner C.W., Gfeller K.E., Lowder M.W. 2005. Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing. The Laryngoscope, 115: 796–802.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gfeller K., Olszewski C., Turner C., Gantz B., Oleson J. 2006. Music perception with cochlear implants and residual hearing. Audiology and Neurotology, 11: 12–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gfeller K., Turner C., Mehr M., Woodworth G., Fearn R., Knutson J., Witt S., Stordahl J. 2002. Recognition of familiar melodies by adult cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults. Cochlear Implants International, 3: 29–53.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Govaerts P.J., Daemers K., Yperman M., De Beukelaer C., De Saegher G., De Ceulaer G. 2006. Auditory speech sounds evaluation (A§E®): a new test to assess detection, discrimination and identification in hearing impairment. Cochlear Implants International, 7: 97–106.
   Google Scholar
• Green D.M. 1976. An Introduction to Hearing. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Green T., Faulkner A., Rosen S. 2004. Enhancing temporal cues to voice pitch in continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116: 2298–2310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green T., Faulkner A., Rosen S., Macharey O. 2005. Enhancement of temporal periodicity cues in cochlear implants: effects on prosodic perception and vowel identification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(1): 375–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gussenhoven C., Rietveld A.C.M. 1985. On the relation between pitch excursion size and pitch prominence. Journal of Phonetics, 13: 299–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jusczyk P.W. 1997. The Discovery of Spoken Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kalikow D.N., Stevens K.N., Elliott L.L. 1977. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61: 1337–1351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klatt D.H. 1973. Discrimination of fundamental frequency contours in synthetic speech: implications for models of pitch perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 53(1): 8–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kong Y.-Y., Cruz R., Ackland Jones J., Zeng F.G. 2004. Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electrical hearing. Ear and Hearing, 25: 173–185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo Y.-C., Rosen S., Faulkner A. 2008. Acoustic cues to tonal contrasts in Mandarin: implications for cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123: 2815–2824.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laneau J., Wouters J., Moonen M. 2006. Improved music perception with explicit pitch coding in cochlear implants. Audiology & Neurotology, 11: 38–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt H. 1971. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49: 467–477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenzi C., Gilbert G., Carn H., Garnier S., Moore B.J.C. 2006. Speech perception problems of the hearing impaires reflect inability to use temporal fine structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103: 18866–18869.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meister H., Tepeli D., Wagner P., Hess W., Walger M., von Wedel H., Lang-Roth R. 2007. Experimente zur Perzeption prosodischer Merkmale mit Kochleaimplantaten. HNO, 55: 264–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.J.C. 2008. The role of temporal fine structure processing in pitch perception, masking and speech perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired people. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 9: 399–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens E., Kessler D.K., Schubert E.D. 1981. The minimal auditory capabilities (MAC) battery. Hearing Aid Journal, 34: 9–34.
   Google Scholar
• Peppé S., Martinez-Castilla P., Coene M., Hesling I., Moen I., Gibbon F. 2010. Assessing prosodic skills in five European languages: cross-linguistic differences in typical and atypical populations. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12: 1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peppé S., McCann J. 2003. Assessing intonation and prosody in children with atypical language development: the PEPS-C test and the revised version. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 17: 345–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierrehumbert J.B. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Massachusetts: Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Pisoni D. 1973. Auditory and phonetic memory codes in the discrimination of consonants and vowels. Perception and Psychophysics, 13: 253–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R., Mimpen A.M. 1979. Speech-reception threshold for sentence as a function of age an noise level. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66: 1333–1342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Repp B.H., Lin H.B. 1990. Integration of segmental and tonal information in speech perception: a cross-linguistic study (A). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87: S46.
   Google Scholar
• Savino M. 2004. Intonational cues to discourse structure in a regional variety of Italian. In: , Gilles P., Peters J. (eds). Regional Variation in Intonation. Tübingen: Niemeyer. p. 145–160.
   Google Scholar
• Schauwers K., Coene M., Heeren W., del Bo L., Pascu A., Vaerenberg B., Govaerts P.J. in preparation. Pitch Perception in Hearing-Impaired Adults with Aided and Unaided Hearing Loss.
   Google Scholar
• Spitzer S., Liss J., Spahr T., Dorman M., Lansford K. 2009. The use of fundamental frequency for lexical segmentation in listeners with cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125: EL236–EL241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stagray J.R., Downs D., Sommers R.K. 1992. Contributions of the fundamental, resolved harmonics, and unresolved harmonics in tone-phoneme identification. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35: 1406–1409.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sucher C.M., McDermott H.J. 2007. Pitch ranking of complex tones by normally hearing subjects and cochlear implant users. Hearing Research, 230: 80–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swerts M., Collier R., Terken J. 1994. Prosodic predictors of discourse finality in spontaneous monologues. Speech Communication, 15: 79–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaerenberg B., Pascu A., Del Bo M., Schauwers K., De Ceulaer G., Daemers K., Coene M., Govaerts P. 2011. Clinical assessment of pitch perception. Otology & Neurotology, 32(5): 736–741.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Heuven V.J., Haan J. 2000. Phonetic correlates of statement versus question intonation in Dutch. In: , Botinis A. (ed). Intonation: Analysis, Modelling and Technology. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer. p. 119–144.
   Google Scholar
• Van Katwijk A. 1974. Accentuation in Dutch. Amsterdam/Assen: Van Gorcum.
   Google Scholar
• Vroomen J., Collier R., Mozziconacci S. 1993. Duration and intonation in emotional speech. Proceedings of Eurospeech. p. 577–580.
   Google Scholar
• Xu L., Pfingst B. 2003. Relative importance of temporal envelope and fine structure in lexical-tone perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114: 3024–3027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar