Speech recognition performance of listeners with normal hearing, sensorineural hearing loss, and sensorineural hearing loss and bothersome tinnitus when using air and bone conduction communication headsets

2016 ◽  
Vol 139 (4) ◽  
pp. 1995-1995 ◽  
Author(s):  
Candice A. Manning ◽  
Timothy J. Mermagen ◽  
Angelique A. Scharine
1990 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 726-735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Lisa Roberts

The role that sensorineural hearing loss plays in the speech-recognition difficulties of the hearing-impaired elderly is examined. One approach to this issue was to make between-group comparisons of performance for three groups of subjects: (a) young normal-hearing adults; (b) elderly hearing-impaired adults; and (c) young normal-hearing adults with simulated sensorineural hearing loss equivalent to that of the elderly subjects produced by a spectrally shaped masking noise. Another approach to this issue employed correlational analyses to examine the relation between audibility and speech recognition within the group of elderly hearing-impaired subjects. An additional approach was pursued in which an acoustical index incorporating adjustments for threshold elevation was used to examine the role audibility played in the speech-recognition performance of the hearing-impaired elderly. A wide range of listening conditions was sampled in this experiment. The conclusion was that the primary determiner of speech-recognition performance in the elderly hearing-impaired subjects was their threshold elevation.


1994 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 655-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela E. Souza ◽  
Christopher W. Turner

This study examined the contributions of various properties of background noise to the speech recognition difficulties experienced by young and elderly listeners with hearing loss. Three groups of subjects participated: young listeners with normal hearing, young listeners with sensorineural hearing loss, and elderly listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Sensitivity thresholds up to 4000 Hz of the young and elderly groups of listeners with hearing loss were closely matched, and a high-pass masking noise was added to minimize the contributions of high-frequency (above 4000 Hz) thresholds, which were not closely matched. Speech recognition scores for monosyllables were obtained in the high-pass noise alone and in three noise backgrounds. The latter consisted of high-pass noise plus one of three maskers: speechspectrum noise, speech-spectrum noise temporally modulated by the envelope of multi-talker babble, and multi-talker babble. For all conditions, the groups with hearing impairment consistently scored lower than the group with normal hearing. Although there was a trend toward poorer speech-recognition scores as the masker condition more closely resembled the speech babble, the effect of masker condition was not statistically significant. There was no interaction between group and condition, implying that listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss are affected similarly by the type of background noise when the long-term spectrum of the masker is held constant. A significant effect of age was not observed. In addition, masked thresholds for pure tones in the presence of the speech-spectrum masker were not different for the young and elderly listeners with hearing loss. These results suggest that, for both steady-state and modulated background noises, difficulties in speech recognition for monosyllables are due primarily, and perhaps exclusively, to the presence of sensorineural hearing loss itself, and not to age-specific factors.


2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (01) ◽  
pp. 059-070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin M. Picou ◽  
Todd A. Ricketts

Background: Understanding speech over the telephone when listening in noisy environments may present a significant challenge for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare speech recognition and subjective ratings across several hearing aid-based telephone listening strategies for individuals with moderate-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss. Research Design: Speech recognition and subjective ratings were evaluated for a simulated telephone signal. The strategies evaluated included acoustic telephone, unilateral telecoil, unilateral wireless streaming, and bilateral wireless streaming. Participants were seated in a noisy room for all evaluations. Study Sample: Eighteen adults, aged 49–88 yr, with moderate-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss participated. Data Collection and Analysis: Speech recognition scores on the Connected Speech Test were converted to rationalized arcsine units and analyzed using analysis of variance testing and Tukey post hoc analyses. Subjective ratings of ease and comfort were also analyzed in this manner. Results: Speech recognition performance was poorest with acoustic coupling to the telephone and best with bilateral wireless routing. Telecoil coupling resulted in better speech recognition performance than acoustic coupling, but was significantly poorer than bilateral wireless routing. Furthermore, unilateral wireless routing and telecoil coupling generally led to similar speech recognition performance, except in lower-level background noise conditions, for which unilateral routing resulted in better performance than the telecoil. Conclusions: For people with moderate-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss, acoustic telephone listening with a hearing aid may not lead to acceptable performance in noise. Although unilateral routing options (telecoil and wireless streaming) improved performance, speech recognition performance and subjective ratings of ease and comfort were best when bilateral wireless routing was used. These results suggest that wireless routing is a potentially beneficial telephone listening strategy for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss who are fitted with limited venting if the telephone signal is routed to both ears. Unilateral wireless routing may provide similar benefits to traditional unilateral telecoil. However, the newer wireless systems may have the advantage for some listeners in that they do not include some of the positioning constraints associated with telecoil use.


1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 114-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald D. Dirks ◽  
Donald E. Morgan ◽  
Judy R. Dubno

This paper describes the results of two experiments in which speech recognition performance was determined for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss, while listening in babble. Adaptive strategies were used in both experiments to measure the signal-to-babble ratio required to achieve a preselected level of performance at several speech presentation levels encountered in normal conversation or when listening through an amplifier system. The results suggest that the proposed adaptive strategy may provide a practical method by which the relative effects of competition on speech recognition may be quantified in an individual listener.


2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (06) ◽  
pp. 367-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Wilson ◽  
Deborah G. Weakley

The purpose of this study was to determine if performances on a 500 Hz MLD task and a word-recognition task in multitalker babble covaried or varied independently for listeners with normal hearing and for listeners with hearing loss. Young listeners with normal hearing (n = 25) and older listeners (25 per decade from 40–80 years, n = 125) with sensorineural hearing loss were studied. Thresholds at 500 and 1000 Hz were ≤30 dB HL and ≤40 dB HL, respectively, with thresholds above 1000 Hz <100 dB HL. There was no systematic relationship between the 500 Hz MLD and word-recognition performance in multitalker babble. Higher SoNo and SπNo; thresholds were observed for the older listeners, but the MLDs were the same for all groups. Word recognition in babble in terms of signal-to-babble ratio was on average 6.5 (40- to 49-year-old group) to 10.8 dB (80- to 89-year-old group) poorer for the older listeners with hearing loss. Neither pure-tone thresholds nor word-recognition abilities in quiet accurately predicted word-recognition performance in multitalker babble.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document