Contribution of Consonant Landmarks to Speech Recognition in Simulated Acoustic-Electric Hearing: Erratum
In the article that appeared on page 259 of the April 2010 issue of Ear and Hearing, the following errors appear. We sincerely regret these errors.
In the last sentence of the Results section in the Abstract, the word “and” should have been deleted. The sentence should appear as follows:
The examined objective measure predicted with a relatively high correlation (r = 0.92 to 0.94) the intelligibility of vocoded speech improved in both steady and two-talker masking conditions.
In the first paragraph of the Introduction, there are errors in the sentence. The sentence should appear as follows:
In brief, the above findings indicate that, though the acoustic cues present in voiced speech segments (e.g., vowels) may be resistant, to some extent, to corruption by noise (Parikh & Loizou 2005), the acoustic cues in the unvoiced and weak energy segments (e.g., consonants) are severely corrupted and sometimes rendered useless.
In the second paragraph of the Introduction, a comma appears in error; the sentence should appear as follows:
A substantial amount of evidence exists supporting the benefits of EAS in terms of better speech recognition in noisy environments, in studies involving EAS patients (Gantz & Turner 2003; Turner et al. 2004; Kiefer et al. 2005; Kong et al. 2005; Gantz et al. 2006) and simulation studies with normal-hearing (NH) listeners listening to vocoded speech (Dorman et al. 2005; Chang et al. 2006; Qin & Oxenham 2006; Kong & Carlyon, 2007; Li & Loizou, 2008a).
Chen F, Loizou PC. Contribution of Consonant Landmarks to Speech Recognition in Simulated Acoustic-Electric Hearing. Ear Hear
2010; 31: 259-267.