Consonant-Recognition Patterns and Self-Assessment of Hearing Handicap

1991 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 1397-1409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Goldschmidt Hustedde ◽  
Terry L. Wiley
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Error Patterns ◽  
Consonant Recognition ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Hearing Handicap

Two companion experiments were conducted with normal-hearing subjects and subjects with high-frequency, sensorineural hearing loss. In Experiment 1, the validity of a self-assessment device of hearing handicap was evaluated in two groups of hearing-impaired listeners with significantly different consonant-recognition ability. Data for the Hearing Performance Inventory—Revised (Lamb, Owens, & Schubert, 1983) did not reveal differences in self-perceived handicap for the two groups of hearing-impaired listeners; it was sensitive to perceived differences in hearing abilities for listeners who did and did not have a hearing loss. Experiment 2 was aimed at evaluation of consonant error patterns that accounted for observed group differences in consonant-recognition ability. Error patterns on the Nonsense-Syllable Test (NST) across the two subject groups differed in both degree and type of error. Listeners in the group with poorer NST performance always demonstrated greater difficulty with selected low-frequency and high-frequency syllables than did listeners in the group with better NST performance. Overall, the NST was sensitive to differences in consonant-recognition ability for normal hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

Dimensions of Consonant Perception in Normal and Hearing-Impaired Listeners

1975 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 444-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Walden ◽  
Allen A. Montgomery
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Similarity Judgments ◽  
The Individual

Judgments of consonant similarity were obtained from subjects who had normal hearing, high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss, or relatively flat sensorineural hearing loss. The individual differences model through program INDSCAL was used to derive a set of perceptual features empirically from the similarity judgments, and to group the subjects on the basis of strength of feature usage. The analysis revealed that sonorance was the dominant dimension in the similarity judgments of the subjects with high-frequency hearing losses, while sibilance tended to dominate the judgments of the subjects with flat audiometric configurations. The normal-hearing subjects tended to weight these two dimensions approximately equally. These differences in similarity judgments were observed based upon audiometric configuration, despite the fact that the two hearing-impaired groups were not unique in word-recognition ability.

Frequency-Discrimination Ability of Hearing-Impaired Listeners

1981 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. M. Zurek ◽  
C. Formby
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Frequency Modulation ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Frequency Discrimination ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Discrimination Ability ◽  
Hearing Sensitivity

Thresholds for frequency modulation were measured by an adaptive, two-alternative, forced-choice method with ten listeners: eight who showed varying degrees of sensorineural hearing impairment, and two with normal-hearing sensitivity. Results for test frequencies spaced at octave intervals between 125 and 4000 Hz showed that, relative to normal-hearing listeners, the ability of the hearing-impaired listeners to detect a sinusoidal frequency modulation: (1) is diminished above a certain level of hearing loss; and (2) is more disrupted for low-frequency tones than for high-frequency tones, given the same degree of hearing loss at the test frequency. The first finding is consistent with that of previous studies which show a general deterioration of frequency-discrimination ability associated with moderate, or worse, hearing loss. It is proposed that the second finding may be explained: 1) by differential impairment of the temporal and place mechanisms presumed to, encode pitch at the lower and higher frequencies, respectively; and/or, 2) for certain configurations of hearing loss, by the asymmetrical pattern of cochlear excitation that may lead to the underestimation, from measurements of threshold sensitivity, of hearing impairment for low-frequency tones and consequently to relatively large changes in frequency discrimination for small shifts in hearing threshold.

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.

Older Listeners' Use of Temporal Cues Altered by Compression Amplification

2000 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 661-674 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela E. Souza
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Temporal Information ◽  
Spectral Information ◽  
Temporal Cues ◽  
Age Related

This study compared the ability of younger and older listeners to use temporal information in speech when that information was altered by compression amplification. Recognition of vowel-consonant-vowel syllables was measured for four groups of adult listeners (younger normal hearing, older normal hearing, younger hearing impaired, older hearing impaired). There were four conditions. Syllables were processed with wide-dynamic range compression (WDRC) amplification and with linear amplification. In each of those conditions, recognition was measured for syllables containing only temporal information and for syllables containing spectral and temporal information. Recognition of WDRC-amplified speech provided an estimate of the ability to use altered amplitude envelope cues. Syllables were presented with a high-frequency masker to minimize confounding differences in high-frequency sensitivity between the younger and older groups. Scores were lower for WDRC-amplified speech than for linearly amplified speech, and older listeners performed more poorly than younger listeners. When spectral information was unrestricted, the age-related decrement was similar for both amplification types. When spectral information was restricted for listeners with normal hearing, the age-related decrement was greater for WDRC-amplified speech than for linearly amplified speech. When spectral information was restricted for listeners with hearing loss, the age-related decrement was similar for both amplification types. Clinically, these results imply that when spectral cues are available (i.e., when the listener has adequate spectral resolution) older listeners can use WDRC hearing aids to the same extent as younger listeners. For older listeners without hearing loss, poorer scores for compression-amplified speech suggest an age-related deficit in temporal resolution.

The Effect of Combining Low- and High-Frequency Passbands on Consonant Recognition in the Hearing Impaired

1975 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 719-727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Franklin
Keyword(s):  
High Frequency ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Recognition Score ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Consonant Recognition ◽  
High Band

A comparison was made of the effect on consonant-recognition scores when a low-frequency passband and a high-frequency passband were presented to either the same ear or opposite ears of hearing-impaired subjects. The Fairbanks Rhyme Test was filtered into two bands—240–480 Hz (low band) and 1020–2040 Hz (high band). The high band was presented at 10 dB re threshold at 1500 Hz to the better ear of six subjects with moderate to severe sensorineural hearing losses. The low band was presented to the same (ear receiving high band) or the opposite ear at levels of 10, 30, or 50 dB SL re threshold at 360 Hz in that ear. When the low band and high band were added to the same ear, there was little change in the consonant-recognition score, but, when presented to opposite ears, there was a significant increase in the score, at each of the three sensation levels.

Tone-on-Tone Masking in Subjects with Normal Hearing and with Sensorineural Hearing Loss

1981 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 506-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Y. Chung
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Normal Case ◽  
Pure Tones

Quiet and masked thresholds were obtained from 5 subjects with normal hearing and 31 subjects with sensorineural hearing loss. Maskers were pure tones varying in frequency and intensity. The hearing-impaired subjects showed an abnormal spread of masking when masking was measured in terms of masked threshold. The abnormal spread of masking seems to be related to both the hearing threshold of the masker and the quiet threshold of the test signal. The notch due to detection of combination tones found on the high-frequency slope of masked audiograms of normal subjects (obscuring the actual extent to which the signal is masked) tends to accentuate the apparent abnormal upward spread of masking in the hearing-impaired subjects. The abnormal spread in the latter case is real, but comparison with the normal case must take the notch into account.

scholarly journals Perception of Auditory Distance in Normal-Hearing and Moderate-to-Profound Hearing-Impaired Listeners

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 233121651988761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilles Courtois ◽  
Vincent Grimaldi ◽  
Hervé Lissek ◽  
Philippe Estoppey ◽  
Eleftheria Georganti
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Spatial Cues ◽  
Linear Amplification ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Wireless Microphone ◽  
Auditory Distance ◽  
Non Linear

The auditory system allows the estimation of the distance to sound-emitting objects using multiple spatial cues. In virtual acoustics over headphones, a prerequisite to render auditory distance impression is sound externalization, which denotes the perception of synthesized stimuli outside of the head. Prior studies have found that listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss are able to perceive auditory distance and are sensitive to externalization. However, this ability may be degraded by certain factors, such as non-linear amplification in hearing aids or the use of a remote wireless microphone. In this study, 10 normal-hearing and 20 moderate-to-profound hearing-impaired listeners were instructed to estimate the distance of stimuli processed with different methods yielding various perceived auditory distances in the vicinity of the listeners. Two different configurations of non-linear amplification were implemented, and a novel feature aiming to restore a sense of distance in wireless microphone systems was tested. The results showed that the hearing-impaired listeners, even those with a profound hearing loss, were able to discriminate nearby and far sounds that were equalized in level. Their perception of auditory distance was however more contracted than in normal-hearing listeners. Non-linear amplification was found to distort the original spatial cues, but no adverse effect on the ratings of auditory distance was evident. Finally, it was shown that the novel feature was successful in allowing the hearing-impaired participants to perceive externalized sounds with wireless microphone systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document