Speech understanding in noise: Contributions of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar‐membrane response

2005 ◽  
Vol 117 (4) ◽  
pp. 2599-2599
Author(s):  
Amy R. Horwitz ◽  
Jayne B. Ahlstrom ◽  
Judy R. Dubno
Keyword(s):  
Basilar Membrane ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise

scholarly journals Speech Understanding and Sound Localization with a New Nonimplantable Wearing Option for Baha

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Gawliczek ◽  
Wilhelm Wimmer ◽  
Fabio Munzinger ◽  
Marco Caversaccio ◽  
Martin Kompis
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Bilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise ◽  
Speech Reception ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Speech Reception Thresholds ◽  
Sound Processor

Objective. To measure the audiological benefit of the Baha SoundArc, a recently introduced nonimplantable wearing option for bone conduction sound processor, and to compare it with the known softband wearing option in subjects with normal cochlear function and a purely conductive bilateral hearing loss.Methods. Both ears of 15 normal hearing subjects were occluded for the time of the measurement, yielding an average unaided threshold of 49 dB HL (0.5 – 4 kHz). Soundfield thresholds, speech understanding in quiet and in noise, and sound localization were measured in unaided conditions and with 1 or 2 Baha 5 sound processors mounted on either a softband or a SoundArc device.Results. Soundfield thresholds and speech reception thresholds were improved by 19.5 to 24.8 dB (p<.001), when compared to the unaided condition. Speech reception thresholds in noise were improved by 3.7 to 4.7 dB (p<.001). Using 2 sound processors rather than one improved speech understanding in noise for speech from the direction of the2nddevice and sound localization error by 23° to 28°. No statistically significant difference was found between the SoundArc and the softband wearing options in any of the tests.Conclusions. Bone conduction sound processor mounted on a SoundArc or on a softband resulted in considerable improvements in hearing and speech understanding in subjects with a simulated, purely conductive, and bilateral hearing loss. No significant difference between the 2 wearing options was found. Using 2 sound processors improves sound localization and speech understanding in noise in certain spatial settings.

scholarly journals Speech understanding in noise with the Roger Pen, Naida CI Q70 processor, and integrated Roger 17 receiver in a multi-talker network

2015 ◽  
Vol 273 (5) ◽  
pp. 1107-1114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geert De Ceulaer ◽  
Julie Bestel ◽  
Hans E. Mülder ◽  
Felix Goldbeck ◽  
Sebastien Pierre Janssens de Varebeke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise

On the Use of the Distortion-Sensitivity Approach in Examining the Role of Linguistic Abilities in Speech Understanding in Noise

2011 ◽  
Vol 54 (6) ◽  
pp. 1702-1708 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Theo Goverts ◽  
Elke Huysmans ◽  
Sophia E. Kramer ◽  
Annette M. B. de Groot ◽  
Tammo Houtgast
Keyword(s):  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise ◽  
Sensitivity Approach

The Effects of Venting and Low-Frequency Gain Compensation on Performance in Noise with Directional Hearing Instruments

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (03) ◽  
pp. 168-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda C. Freyaldenhoven ◽  
Patrick N. Plyler ◽  
James W. Thelin ◽  
Anna K. Nabelek ◽  
Samuel B. Burchfield
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Directional Hearing ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Hearing Sensitivity ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise ◽  
Hearing Instruments ◽  
Gain Compensation

The present study investigated the effects of gain compensation and venting on front-to-back ratios (FBRs), speech understanding in noise, and acceptance of noise in 19 listeners with hearing impairment utilizing directional hearing instruments. The participants were separated into two groups based on degree of low-frequency hearing sensitivity. Subjects were fitted binaurally with Starkey Axent II programmable behind-the-ear hearing aids and full-shell earmolds (select-a-vent). Results demonstrated that gain compensation and venting significantly affected FBRs for both groups; however, acceptance of noise was not significantly affected by gain compensation or venting for either group. Results further demonstrated that speech understanding in noise was unaffected by venting but may be improved with the use of gain compensation for some listeners. Clinical implications are discussed.

scholarly journals Personal Sound Amplification Products vs a Conventional Hearing Aid for Speech Understanding in Noise

JAMA ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 318 (1) ◽  
pp. 89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas S. Reed ◽  
Joshua Betz ◽  
Nicole Kendig ◽  
Margaret Korczak ◽  
Frank R. Lin
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise ◽  
Sound Amplification

scholarly journals Sound Localization in Single-Sided Deaf Participants Provided With a Cochlear Implant

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Annemarie Ludwig ◽  
Sylvia Meuret ◽  
Rolf-Dieter Battmer ◽  
Marc Schönwiesner ◽  
Michael Fuchs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Frequency Noise ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

Spatial hearing is crucial in real life but deteriorates in participants with severe sensorineural hearing loss or single-sided deafness. This ability can potentially be improved with a unilateral cochlear implant (CI). The present study investigated measures of sound localization in participants with single-sided deafness provided with a CI. Sound localization was measured separately at eight loudspeaker positions (4°, 30°, 60°, and 90°) on the CI side and on the normal-hearing side. Low- and high-frequency noise bursts were used in the tests to investigate possible differences in the processing of interaural time and level differences. Data were compared to normal-hearing adults aged between 20 and 83. In addition, the benefit of the CI in speech understanding in noise was compared to the localization ability. Fifteen out of 18 participants were able to localize signals on the CI side and on the normal-hearing side, although performance was highly variable across participants. Three participants always pointed to the normal-hearing side, irrespective of the location of the signal. The comparison with control data showed that participants had particular difficulties localizing sounds at frontal locations and on the CI side. In contrast to most previous results, participants were able to localize low-frequency signals, although they localized high-frequency signals more accurately. Speech understanding in noise was better with the CI compared to testing without CI, but only at a position where the CI also improved sound localization. Our data suggest that a CI can, to a large extent, restore localization in participants with single-sided deafness. Difficulties may remain at frontal locations and on the CI side. However, speech understanding in noise improves when wearing the CI. The treatment with a CI in these participants might provide real-world benefits, such as improved orientation in traffic and speech understanding in difficult listening situations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document