scholarly journals Normative Data for a Rapid, Automated Test of Spatial Release From Masking

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 529-538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kasey M. Jakien ◽  
Frederick J. Gallun
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Regression Equations ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Spatial Release ◽  
Auditory Scene ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Release From Masking

Purpose The purpose of this study is to report normative data and predict thresholds for a rapid test of spatial release from masking for speech perception. The test is easily administered and has good repeatability, with the potential to be used in clinics and laboratories. Normative functions were generated for adults varying in age and amounts of hearing loss. Method The test of spatial release presents a virtual auditory scene over headphones with 2 conditions: colocated (with target and maskers at 0°) and spatially separated (with target at 0° and maskers at ± 45°). Listener thresholds are determined as target-to-masker ratios, and spatial release from masking (SRM) is determined as the difference between the colocated condition and spatially separated condition. Multiple linear regression was used to fit the data from 82 adults 18–80 years of age with normal to moderate hearing loss (0–40 dB HL pure-tone average [PTA]). The regression equations were then used to generate normative functions that relate age (in years) and hearing thresholds (as PTA) to target-to-masker ratios and SRM. Results Normative functions were able to predict thresholds with an error of less than 3.5 dB in all conditions. In the colocated condition, the function included only age as a predictive parameter, whereas in the spatially separated condition, both age and PTA were included as parameters. For SRM, PTA was the only significant predictor. Different functions were generated for the 1st run, the 2nd run, and the average of the 2 runs. All 3 functions were largely similar in form, with the smallest error being associated with the function on the basis of the average of 2 runs. Conclusion With the normative functions generated from this data set, it would be possible for a researcher or clinician to interpret data from a small number of participants or even a single patient without having to first collect data from a control group, substantially reducing the time and resources needed. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.7080878

Antioxidant Enzyme Levels Inversely Covary with Hearing Loss After Amikacin Treatment

2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (03) ◽  
pp. 134-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Klemens ◽  
Robert P. Meech ◽  
Larry F. Hughes ◽  
Satu Somani ◽  
Kathleen C.M. Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Enzyme Activity ◽  
Antioxidant Enzyme ◽  
Guinea Pigs ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Antioxidant Enzyme Activity ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Glutathione S Transferase ◽  
Brainstem Response ◽  
The Difference

This study's purpose was to determine if a correlation exists between cochlear antioxidant activity changes and auditory function after induction of aminoglycoside (AG) ototoxicity. Two groups of five 250-350 g albino guinea pigs served as subjects. For 28 days, albino guinea pigs were administered either 200 mg/kg/day amikacin, or saline subcutaneously. Auditory brainstem response testing was performed prior to the first injection and again before sacrifice, 28 days later. Cochleae were harvested and superoxide dismutase, catalase, glutathione peroxidase, glutathione-S-transferase, glutathione reductase activities and malondialdehyde levels were measured. All antioxidant enzymes had significantly lower activity in the amikacin group (p ≤ 0.05) than in the control group. The difference in cochlear antioxidant enzyme activity between groups inversely correlated significantly with the change in ABR thresholds. The greatest correlation was for the high frequencies, which are most affected by aminoglycosides. This study demonstrates that antioxidant enzyme activity and amikacin-induced hearing loss significantly covary.

scholarly journals Spatial Release from Masking Using Clinical Corpora: Sentence Recognition in a Colocated or Spatially Separated Speech Masker

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (04) ◽  
pp. 271-276
Author(s):  
Grant King ◽  
Nicole E. Corbin ◽  
Lori J. Leibold ◽  
Emily Buss
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Spatial Separation ◽  
Speech Corpus ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Spatial Release ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Release From Masking ◽  
Perceived Spatial Separation ◽  
Separation Conditions

Abstract Background Speech recognition in complex multisource environments is challenging, particularly for listeners with hearing loss. One source of difficulty is the reduced ability of listeners with hearing loss to benefit from spatial separation of the target and masker, an effect called spatial release from masking (SRM). Despite the prevalence of complex multisource environments in everyday life, SRM is not routinely evaluated in the audiology clinic. Purpose The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of assessing SRM in adults using widely available tests of speech-in-speech recognition that can be conducted using standard clinical equipment. Research Design Participants were 22 young adults with normal hearing. The task was masked sentence recognition, using each of five clinically available corpora with speech maskers. The target always sounded like it originated from directly in front of the listener, and the masker either sounded like it originated from the front (colocated with the target) or from the side (separated from the target). In the real spatial manipulation conditions, source location was manipulated by routing the target and masker to either a single speaker or to two speakers: one directly in front of the participant, and one mounted in an adjacent corner, 90° to the right. In the perceived spatial separation conditions, the target and masker were presented from both speakers with delays that made them sound as if they were either colocated or separated. Results With real spatial manipulations, the mean SRM ranged from 7.1 to 11.4 dB, depending on the speech corpus. With perceived spatial manipulations, the mean SRM ranged from 1.8 to 3.1 dB. Whereas real separation improves the signal-to-noise ratio in the ear contralateral to the masker, SRM in the perceived spatial separation conditions is based solely on interaural timing cues. Conclusions The finding of robust SRM with widely available speech corpora supports the feasibility of measuring this important aspect of hearing in the audiology clinic. The finding of a small but significant SRM in the perceived spatial separation conditions suggests that modified materials could be used to evaluate the use of interaural timing cues specifically.

A Ccomparison of sedigraph and pipette methods for soil particle-size analysis

Soil Research ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 407 ◽  
Author(s):  
GD Buchan ◽  
KS Grewal ◽  
JJ Claydon ◽  
RJ Mcpherson
Keyword(s):  
Particle Size ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Particle Size Analysis ◽  
Size Analysis ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Regression Equations ◽  
Total Iron Content ◽  
Data Set ◽  
X Ray ◽  
The Difference

The X-ray attenuation (Sedigraph) method for particle-size analysis is known to consistently estimate a finer size distribution than the pipette method. The objectives of this study were to compare the two methods, and to explore the reasons for their divergence. The methods are compared using two data sets from measurements made independently in two New Zealand laboratories, on two different sets of New Zealand soils, covering a range of textures and parent materials. The Sedigraph method gave systematically greater mass percentages at the four measurement diameters (20, 10, 5 and 2 �m). For one data set, the difference between clay (<2 �m) percentages from the two methods is shown to be positively correlated (R2 = 0.625) with total iron content of the sample, for all but one of the soils. This supports a novel hypothesis that the typically greater concentration of Fe (a strong X-ray absorber) in smaller size fractions is the major factor causing the difference. Regression equations are presented for converting the Sedigraph data to their pipette equivalents.

scholarly journals Validating a Rapid, Automated Test of Spatial Release From Masking

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 507-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kasey M. Jakien ◽  
Sean D. Kampel ◽  
Meghan M. Stansell ◽  
Frederick J. Gallun
Keyword(s):  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Strong Predictor ◽  
Target Sentence ◽  
Anechoic Chamber ◽  
Older Individuals ◽  
Spatial Release ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Release From Masking ◽  
Test Repetition ◽  
Future Work

Purpose To evaluate the test–retest reliability of a headphone-based spatial release from a masking task with two maskers (referred to here as the SR2) and to describe its relationship to the same test done over loudspeakers in an anechoic chamber (the SR2A). We explore what thresholds tell us about certain populations (such as older individuals or individuals with hearing impairment) and discuss how the SR2 might be useful in the clinic. Method Fifty-four participants completed speech intelligibility tests in which a target phrase and two masking phrases from the Coordinate Response Measure corpus (Bolia, Nelson, Ericson, & Simpson, 2000) were presented either via earphones using a virtual spatial array or via loudspeakers in an anechoic chamber. For the SR2, the target sentence was always at 0° azimuth angle, and the maskers were either colocated at 0° or positioned at ± 45°. For the SR2A, the target was located at 0°, and the maskers were colocated or located at ± 15°, ± 30°, ± 45°, ± 90°, or ± 135°. Spatial release from masking was determined as the difference between thresholds in the colocated condition and each spatially separated condition. All participants completed the SR2 at least twice, and 29 of the individuals who completed the SR2 at least twice also participated in the SR2A. In a second experiment, 40 participants completed the SR2 8 times, and the changes in performance were evaluated as a function of test repetition. Results Mean thresholds were slightly better on the SR2 after the first repetition but were consistent across 8 subsequent testing sessions. Performance was consistent for the SR2A, regardless of the number of times testing was repeated. The SR2, which simulates 45° separations of target and maskers, produced spatially separated thresholds that were similar to thresholds obtained with 30° of separation in the anechoic chamber. Over headphones and in the anechoic chamber, pure-tone average was a strong predictor of spatial release, whereas age only reached significance for colocated conditions. Conclusions The SR2 is a reliable and effective method of testing spatial release from masking, suitable for screening abnormal listening abilities and for tracking rehabilitation over time. Future work should focus on developing and validating rapid, automated testing to identify the ability of listeners to benefit from high-frequency amplification, smaller spatial separations, and larger spectral differences among talkers.

Spatial Release From Masking in Bimodal and Bilateral Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Kaylene King ◽  
Margaret T. Dillon ◽  
Brendan P. O'Connell ◽  
Kevin D. Brown ◽  
Lisa R. Park
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Multiple Regression ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Spatial Release ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Release From Masking ◽  
Device Use ◽  
Clinical Measures

Purpose Traditional clinical measures of cochlear implant (CI) recipient performance may not fully evaluate the benefit of bimodal listening (hearing aid contralateral to a CI). The clinical assessment of spatial release from masking (SRM) may be a sensitive measure of the benefit of listening with bimodal stimulation. This study compared the SRM of pediatric bimodal and bilateral CI listeners using a clinically feasible method, and investigated variables that may contribute to speech recognition performance with spatially separated maskers. Method Forty pediatric bimodal ( N = 20) and bilateral CI ( N = 20) participants were assessed in their best aided listening condition on sentence recognition in a four-talker masker. Testing was completed with target and masker colocated at 0° azimuth, and with the masker directed at 90° to either ear. SRM was calculated as the difference in performance between the colocated and each 90° condition. A two-way mixed-methods analysis of variance was used to compare performance between groups in the three masker conditions. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to investigate potential predictors for SRM asymmetry including hearing history, unaided thresholds, word recognition, duration of device use, and acoustic bandwidth. Results Both groups demonstrated SRM, with significantly better recognition in each 90° condition as compared to the colocated condition. The groups did not differ significantly in SRM. The multiple regression analyses did not reveal any significant predictors of SRM asymmetry. Conclusions Bimodal and bilateral CI listeners demonstrated similar amounts of SRM. While no specific variables predicted SRM asymmetry in bimodal listeners, pediatric bimodal and bilateral CI recipients should expect similar amounts of SRM regardless of the side of the masker. SRM asymmetry in pediatric bimodal listeners may signal a need for consideration of a second CI.

Normative data for assessing performance on a rapid, automated test of speech-on-speech masking and spatial release from masking

2017 ◽  
Vol 141 (5) ◽  
pp. 4030-4030
Author(s):  
Frederick J. Gallun ◽  
Kasey Jakien ◽  
Nirmal Srinivasan ◽  
Aaron Seitz ◽  
Sean Kampel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Normative Data ◽  
Spatial Release ◽  
Automated Test ◽  
Release From Masking

scholarly journals Anxiety and Depression in Patients with Sudden One-sided Hearing Loss

2018 ◽  
Vol 97 (10-11) ◽  
pp. E7-E9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatih Arslan ◽  
Emre Aydemir ◽  
Yavuz Selim Kaya ◽  
Hasan Arslan ◽  
Abdullah Durmaz
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Patient Group ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Sudden Hearing Loss ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Beck Hopelessness Scale ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Anxiety Depression ◽  
Air Conduction

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss is a hearing loss of >30 dB in at least three consecutive frequencies that occurs in 3 days. The aim of this study was to investigate anxiety and depression caused by sudden, idiopathic, one-sided hearing loss. The levels of anxiety and depression in patients with this type of hearing loss were determined using the Beck Anxiety Scale (BAS) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) at the time of the patient's first visit. In total, 56 patients (32 men and 24 women) with a mean age of 32.8 ± 9.9 years (range: 20 to 58 years) were selected as the patient group and 45 individuals without symptoms of anxiety and depression were selected as the control group. The mean pretreatment air-conduction threshold and bone-conduction threshold were 61.1 ± 26.1 and 49.4 ± 13.8, respectively. In the patient group, the pretreatment mean anxiety, depression, and hopelessness scores were 19.5 ± 10.7, 11.6 ± 8.4, and 6.2 ± 4.7, respectively. The control group's mean anxiety, depression, and hopelessness scores were 4.1 ± 3.0, 3.8 ± 2.1, and 1.8 ± 1.0, respectively. For all the tests, the difference between the patient group and the control group was statistically significant (p < 0.001 for all). Hearing levels were not correlated with scores on the BAS, BDI, and Beck Hopelessness Scale (p = 0.1, p = 0.6, and p = 0.4, respectively). In conclusion, the results of this study show that sudden hearing loss can cause anxiety and depression. Questioning patients with sudden hearing loss about symptoms associated with anxiety and depression might be useful, and a psychiatric consultation should be requested if necessary.

scholarly journals Effects of age and hearing loss on perceptual and physiological measures of temporal envelope processing and spatial release from speech-on-speech masking

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chhayakanta Patro ◽  
Heather A. Kreft ◽  
Magdalena Wojtczak
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Amplitude Modulation ◽  
Gap Detection ◽  
Physiological Measures ◽  
Detection Thresholds ◽  
Temporal Envelope ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Spatial Release ◽  
Envelope Processing ◽  
Release From Masking

AbstractOlder adults often experience difficulties understanding speech in adverse listening conditions. These difficulties are partially attributed to auditory temporal-processing deficits associated with aging even in the absence of hearing loss. The aim of this study was to assess effects of age and hearing loss on temporal envelope processing and speech-on-speech masking. Listeners with normal and near-normal hearing across a wide age range (20 to 66 years) were tested using a series of psychophysical (amplitude-modulation detection, gap detection, and interaural-envelope-phase discrimination), physiological (electroencephalographic envelope-following responses), speech perception (spatial release from masking), and cognitive (processing speed) measures. Results showed that: (i) psychophysical measures of monaural and binaural envelope processing and neural measures of envelope processing are not affected by aging after accounting for audiometric hearing loss, (ii) behavioral gap-detection thresholds decline with age, (iii) aging results in a reduction of spatial release from masking, even as speech intensity is amplified in the region of hearing loss, (iv) aging is associated with poorer measures of cognitive function. Although age significantly contributed to a decline in spatial release from speech-on-speech masking, individual differences in envelope processing and in scores from nonauditory cognitive tests used in this study were not significant predictors of speech performance.HighlightsAge per se does not affect psychophysical and physiological measures of monaural amplitude-modulation processing.Age does not affect the ability to detect interaural disparities in envelope timing between the ears.Gap detection thresholds degrades with age even after hearing thresholds are statistically accounted for.Age, independent of hearing thresholds, can substantially reduce spatial release from masking.Cognitive ability declines with age. However, such declines do not necessarily cause deficits in spatial release from masking.

Development of Spatial Release From Masking in Mandarin-Speaking Children With Normal Hearing

2014 ◽  
Vol 57 (5) ◽  
pp. 2005-2023 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin C. P. Yuen ◽  
Meng Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Developmental Time ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Developmental Studies ◽  
Closed Set ◽  
Correct Score ◽  
Spatial Release ◽  
Monosyllabic Words ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Release From Masking

Purpose This study investigated the development of spatial release from masking in children using closed-set Mandarin disyllabic words and monosyllabic words carrying lexical tones as test stimuli and speech spectrum–weighted noise as a masker. Method Twenty-six children ages 4–9 years and 12 adults, all with normal hearing, participated in speech recognition tests under 2 conditions: (a) speech and noise spatially mixed and presented from the front (NF), and (b) speech presented from the front with noise spatially separated and presented from the side (NS) with different signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Performance-SNR psychometric functions were obtained that generated the SNR for a 50% correct score (SNR-50%) as the outcome measure. Results In the child participants, SNR-50% improved with age in NS but not NF. The difference in SNR-50% between NS and NF—the spatial release from masking (SRM)—increased with age with an average improvement of 0.1–0.15 dB per month. Conclusions SRM has a long developmental time, at least up to 9 years of age, which is significantly longer than some previous developmental studies have suggested. The child participants had not yet reached the adult SRM performance level. SRM is a potential clinical measure to reflect the maturation of spatial auditory processing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document