Speech recognition in noise as a function of highpass-filter cutoff frequency for people with and without low-frequency cochlear dead regions

2008 ◽  
Vol 123 (2) ◽  
pp. 606-609 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinay ◽  
Thomas Baer ◽  
Brian C. J. Moore
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 527-544
Author(s):  
H. C. Stronks ◽  
J. J. Briaire ◽  
J. H. M. Frijns

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.


Author(s):  
Seong Jun Song ◽  
Hyun Joon Shim ◽  
Chul Ho Park ◽  
Seong Hee Lee ◽  
Sang Won Yoon

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 233121652098029
Author(s):  
Allison Trine ◽  
Brian B. Monson

Several studies have demonstrated that extended high frequencies (EHFs; >8 kHz) in speech are not only audible but also have some utility for speech recognition, including for speech-in-speech recognition when maskers are facing away from the listener. However, the contribution of EHF spectral versus temporal information to speech recognition is unknown. Here, we show that access to EHF temporal information improved speech-in-speech recognition relative to speech bandlimited at 8 kHz but that additional access to EHF spectral detail provided an additional small but significant benefit. Results suggest that both EHF spectral structure and the temporal envelope contribute to the observed EHF benefit. Speech recognition performance was quite sensitive to masker head orientation, with a rotation of only 15° providing a highly significant benefit. An exploratory analysis indicated that pure-tone thresholds at EHFs are better predictors of speech recognition performance than low-frequency pure-tone thresholds.


2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (08) ◽  
pp. 577-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Rudner ◽  
Thomas Lunner ◽  
Thomas Behrens ◽  
Elisabet Sundewall Thorén ◽  
Jerker Rönnberg

Background: Recently there has been interest in using subjective ratings as a measure of perceived effort during speech recognition in noise. Perceived effort may be an indicator of cognitive load. Thus, subjective effort ratings during speech recognition in noise may covary both with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and individual cognitive capacity. Purpose: The present study investigated the relation between subjective ratings of the effort involved in listening to speech in noise, speech recognition performance, and individual working memory (WM) capacity in hearing impaired hearing aid users. Research Design: In two experiments, participants with hearing loss rated perceived effort during aided speech perception in noise. Noise type and SNR were manipulated in both experiments, and in the second experiment hearing aid compression release settings were also manipulated. Speech recognition performance was measured along with WM capacity. Study Sample: There were 46 participants in all with bilateral mild to moderate sloping hearing loss. In Experiment 1 there were 16 native Danish speakers (eight women and eight men) with a mean age of 63.5 yr (SD = 12.1) and average pure tone (PT) threshold of 47. 6 dB (SD = 9.8). In Experiment 2 there were 30 native Swedish speakers (19 women and 11 men) with a mean age of 70 yr (SD = 7.8) and average PT threshold of 45.8 dB (SD = 6.6). Data Collection and Analysis: A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for effort rating in both experiments. In Experiment 1, effort was rated at individually adapted SNRs while in Experiment 2 it was rated at fixed SNRs. Speech recognition in noise performance was measured using adaptive procedures in both experiments with Dantale II sentences in Experiment 1 and Hagerman sentences in Experiment 2. WM capacity was measured using a letter-monitoring task in Experiment 1 and the reading span task in Experiment 2. Results: In both experiments, there was a strong and significant relation between rated effort and SNR that was independent of individual WM capacity, whereas the relation between rated effort and noise type seemed to be influenced by individual WM capacity. Experiment 2 showed that hearing aid compression setting influenced rated effort. Conclusions: Subjective ratings of the effort involved in speech recognition in noise reflect SNRs, and individual cognitive capacity seems to influence relative rating of noise type.


2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisette M. van Leeuwen ◽  
Thadé Goderie ◽  
Marieke F. van Wier ◽  
Birgit I. Lissenberg-Witte ◽  
Ulrike Lemke ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document