Effects of steep high-frequency hearing loss on speech recognition using temporal fine structure in low-frequency region

2015 ◽  
Vol 326 ◽  
pp. 66-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bei Li ◽  
Limin Hou ◽  
Li Xu ◽  
Hui Wang ◽  
Guang Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Fine Structure ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Frequency Region ◽  
Temporal Fine Structure ◽  
High Frequency Hearing Loss

Potential Benefits of an Integrated Electric-Acoustic Sound Processor with Children: A Preliminary Report

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (02) ◽  
pp. 127-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jace Wolfe ◽  
Sara Neumann ◽  
Erin Schafer ◽  
Megan Marsh ◽  
Mark Wood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Real World ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
High Frequency Hearing Loss ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Acoustic Hearing ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Sound Processor

Background: A number of published studies have demonstrated the benefits of electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) over conventional electric stimulation for adults with functional low-frequency acoustic hearing and severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss. These benefits potentially include better speech recognition in quiet and in noise, better localization, improvements in sound quality, better music appreciation and aptitude, and better pitch recognition. There is, however, a paucity of published reports describing the potential benefits and limitations of EAS for children with functional low-frequency acoustic hearing and severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss. Purpose: The objective of this study was to explore the potential benefits of EAS for children. Research Design: A repeated measures design was used to evaluate performance differences obtained with EAS stimulation versus acoustic- and electric-only stimulation. Study Sample: Seven users of Cochlear Nucleus Hybrid, Nucleus 24 Freedom, CI512, and CI422 implants were included in the study. Data Collection and Analysis: Sentence recognition (assayed using the pediatric version of the AzBio sentence recognition test) was evaluated in quiet and at three fixed signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) (0, +5, and +10 dB). Functional hearing performance was also evaluated with the use of questionnaires, including the comparative version of the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities, the Listening Inventory for Education Revised, and the Children’s Home Inventory for Listening Difficulties. Results: Speech recognition in noise was typically better with EAS compared to participants’ performance with acoustic- and electric-only stimulation, particularly when evaluated at the less favorable SNR. Additionally, in real-world situations, children generally preferred to use EAS compared to electric-only stimulation. Also, the participants’ classroom teachers observed better hearing performance in the classroom with the use of EAS. Conclusions: Use of EAS provided better speech recognition in quiet and in noise when compared to performance obtained with use of acoustic- and electric-only stimulation, and children responded favorably to the use of EAS implemented in an integrated sound processor for real-world use.

The influence of age and high-frequency hearing loss on sensitivity to temporal fine structure at low frequencies (L)

2012 ◽  
Vol 131 (2) ◽  
pp. 1003-1006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian C. J. Moore ◽  
Brian R. Glasberg ◽  
Martin Stoev ◽  
Christian Füllgrabe ◽  
Kathryn Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Fine Structure ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Temporal Fine Structure ◽  
Low Frequencies ◽  
High Frequency Hearing Loss

Speech Recognition Threshold in Noise

1987 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 377-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dianne J. Van Tasell ◽  
Jeilry L. Yanz
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Frequency Response ◽  
Delivery System ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Frequency Region ◽  
Recognition Threshold ◽  
Response Characteristics ◽  
Frequency Response Characteristics

Speech recognition threshold (SRT) was measured in quiet and in noise for normal-hearing subjects and subjects with high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. For the hearing-impaired subjects, SRT in quiet approximated the amount of hearing loss in the frequency region of importance for each of two sets of speech materials—spondees and monosyllables. With changes in frequency response of the stimulus delivery system, SRT shifted differentially for spondees and monosyllables. The speed, reliability, and apparent sensitivity of the SRT in quiet and noise to frequency response characteristics make it a potentially useful tool for hearing aid evaluation if speech materials appropriate to both the hearing loss configuration and the frequency response of amplification are chosen.

The Effects of High-Frequency Hearing Loss on Low-Frequency Components of the Click-Evoked Otoacoustic Emission

2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (09) ◽  
pp. 525-533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Owen D. Murnane ◽  
John K. Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Otoacoustic Emission ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Basal Region ◽  
Significant Group ◽  
High Frequency Hearing Loss ◽  
Frequency Components

Click-evoked otoacoustic emission (CEOAE) input/output (I/O) functions were measured in ears with normal hearing and in ears with sensorineural hearing loss above 2000 Hz. The low- to midfrequency CEOAEs obtained from the ears with high-frequency hearing loss were significantly reduced in level compared to the CEOAEs obtained from the ears with normal hearing even though there were no significant group differences in the 250–2000 Hz pure-tone thresholds. The findings are discussed within the context of two hypotheses that explain the low- to midfrequency reduction in transient-evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) magnitude: (1) subclinical damage to the more apical regions of the cochlea not detected by behavioral audiometry, or (2) trauma to the basal region of the cochlea that affects the generation of low-frequency emissions. It is proposed that localized damage at basal cochlear sites affects the generation of low- to midfrequency CEOAE energy.

Effects of Reducing Low-Frequency Amplification on Consonant Perception in Quiet and Noise

1984 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 483-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Gordon-Salant
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Identification Performance ◽  
Phonetic Feature ◽  
Consonant Recognition

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of low-frequency amplification on speech recognition performance by hearing-impaired listeners. Consonant identification performance by subjects with flat hearing losses and high-frequency hearing losses was assessed in three different hearing aid conditions, in quiet and noise. The experimental hearing aids all provided extra high-frequency amplification but differed in the amount of low-frequency amplification. The results showed that listeners with flat hearing losses benefited by low-frequency amplification, whereas subjects with high-frequency hearing losses exhibited deteriorating scores in conditions with greatest low-frequency amplification. Analyses of phonetic feature perception and individual consonant recognition scores revealed subtle interactions between hearing loss configuration and amplification contour.

Speech Audibility for Listeners With High-Frequency Hearing Loss

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher W. Turner ◽  
Karolyn J. Cummings
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Asymptotic Performance ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
High Frequency Hearing Loss ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Speech Information

This study investigated whether there are limitations on the benefit of providing audible speech information to listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. In a group of 10 listeners with various degrees of high-frequency hearing loss, speech recognition was tested across a wide range of presentation levels. For each of these listeners with hearing loss, recognition performance reached an asymptote of <100%. When the spectrum of the speech for this asymptotic performance level was compared with the listener's pure-tone thresholds, it was seen that providing audible speech to high-frequency regions (≥3000 Hz), where hearing loss exceeds 55 dB HL, tended to produce little or no improvement in recognition scores. In contrast, providing audible speech to lower frequency regions for a listener with a flat, severe-to-profound hearing loss did show improvement with increasing speech audibility, despite this listener's thresholds being greater than 55 dB HL. The present study adds further support to the idea that attempting to provide amplification to regions with severe high-frequency hearing loss (≥3000 Hz) may not necessarily benefit many individuals with hearing loss.

scholarly journals The Temporal Fine Structure of Background Noise Determines the Benefit of Bimodal Hearing for Recognizing Speech

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 527-544
Author(s):  
H. C. Stronks ◽  
J. J. Briaire ◽  
J. H. M. Frijns
Keyword(s):  
Fine Structure ◽  
Steady State ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Temporal Fine Structure ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Babble Noise ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise ◽  
Bimodal Hearing

Abstract Cochlear implant (CI) users have more difficulty understanding speech in temporally modulated noise than in steady-state (SS) noise. This is thought to be caused by the limited low-frequency information that CIs provide, as well as by the envelope coding in CIs that discards the temporal fine structure (TFS). Contralateral amplification with a hearing aid, referred to as bimodal hearing, can potentially provide CI users with TFS cues to complement the envelope cues provided by the CI signal. In this study, we investigated whether the use of a CI alone provides access to only envelope cues and whether acoustic amplification can provide additional access to TFS cues. To this end, we evaluated speech recognition in bimodal listeners, using SS noise and two amplitude-modulated noise types, namely babble noise and amplitude-modulated steady-state (AMSS) noise. We hypothesized that speech recognition in noise depends on the envelope of the noise, but not on its TFS when listening with a CI. Secondly, we hypothesized that the amount of benefit gained by the addition of a contralateral hearing aid depends on both the envelope and TFS of the noise. The two amplitude-modulated noise types decreased speech recognition more effectively than SS noise. Against expectations, however, we found that babble noise decreased speech recognition more effectively than AMSS noise in the CI-only condition. Therefore, we rejected our hypothesis that TFS is not available to CI users. In line with expectations, we found that the bimodal benefit was highest in babble noise. However, there was no significant difference between the bimodal benefit obtained in SS and AMSS noise. Our results suggest that a CI alone can provide TFS cues and that bimodal benefits in noise depend on TFS, but not on the envelope of the noise.

scholarly journals Noise Induced Hearing Loss

AAOHN Journal ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oi Saeng Hong ◽  
Shu-Pi C. Chen ◽  
Karen M. Conrad
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Hearing Conservation ◽  
High Frequency Hearing Loss ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Record Review ◽  
Continuous Use

The purposes of this study of airport workers were to a) determine the prevalence and symptoms of hearing loss, and b) identify compliance in using hearing protective devices (HPDs) and its relationship with hearing loss. This cross sectional epidemiological study was conducted with 255 noise exposed and 195 non-noise exposed, full time, male workers at a large metropolitan airport in Seoul, Korea. The three measures used were the self administered Occupational Hearing Questionnaire (OHQ), an audiological assessment, and a record review of baseline hearing and noise levels of locations in which the employee worked. The results showed a significant difference in prevalence of hearing loss (more than 25dB) between the noise and the non-noise exposed groups ( p < .05). About 60.8% of noise exposed workers reported continuous use of the HPDs. The continuous HPD users had significantly lower rates of hearing loss than the occasional users or non-users. The major symptom for workers with low frequency hearing loss was trouble in communication, whereas tinnitus and fullness in the ear were the most common symptoms for the workers with high frequency hearing loss. The airport workers exposed to excessive noise had a great deal of high frequency hearing loss. The degree of hearing loss present reinforces the need for aggressive hearing conservation programs among airport workers exposed to noise.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document