Weisenberger J M, Broadstone S M, Saunders F A
Central Institute for the Deaf, St. Louis, Missouri 63110.
J Acoust Soc Am. 1989 Nov;86(5):1764-75. doi: 10.1121/1.398608.
Two multichannel tactile devices for the hearing impaired were compared in speech perception tasks of varying levels of complexity. Both devices implemented the "vocoder" principle in their stimulus processing: One device had a 16-element linear vibratory array worn on the forearm and displayed activity in 16 overlapping frequency channels; the other device delivered tactile stimulation to a linear array of 16 electrodes worn on the abdomen. Subjects were tested in several phoneme discrimination tasks, ranging from discrimination of pairs of words differing in only one phoneme under tactile aid alone conditions to identification of stimuli in a larger set under tactile aid alone, lipreading alone, and lipreading plus tactile aid conditions. Results showed both devices to be better transmitters of manner and voicing features of articulation than of place features, when tested in single-item tasks. No systematic differences in performance with the two devices were observed. However, in a connected discourse tracking task, the vibrotactile vocoder in conjunction with lipreading yielded much greater improvements over lipreading alone than did the electrotactile vocoder. One possible explanation for this difference in performance, the inclusion of a noise suppression circuit in the electrotactile aid, was evaluated, but did not appear to account for the differences observed. Results are discussed in terms of additional differences between the two devices that may influence performance.
