Amplitude-modulation detection and speech recognition in normal and hearing-impaired listeners

2017 ◽  
Vol 141 (5) ◽  
pp. 3749-3749
Author(s):  
Sarah Verhulst ◽  
Anna Warzybok
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Amplitude Modulation ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Modulation Detection

scholarly journals Amplitude Modulation Detection and Speech Recognition in Late-Implanted Prelingually and Postlingually Deafened Cochlear Implant Users

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 557-566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anke M. De Ruiter ◽  
Joke A. Debruyne ◽  
Michelene N. Chenault ◽  
Tom Francart ◽  
Jan P. L. Brokx
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Amplitude Modulation ◽  
Modulation Detection

Frequency Modulation Detection by Normally Hearing and Profoundly Hearing-Impaired Listeners

1987 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 558-563 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken W. Grant
Keyword(s):  
Amplitude Modulation ◽  
Frequency Modulation ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Frequency Difference ◽  
Constant Amplitude ◽  
Modulation Detection ◽  
Frequency Modulation Detection ◽  
Frequency Modulations

The ability of normally hearing and profoundly hearing-impaired subjects to detect frequency modulations was evaluated under conditions where the amplitudes of the test signals were either constant (CA), sinusoidally modulated (SAM), or randomly modulated (RAM). Results for hearing-impaired listeners showed larger frequency difference limens (DLFM) than those for normally hearing listeners for all test frequencies (100 to 1000 Hz) and for all amplitude conditions. For both normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects, the DFLM was smallest for the constant amplitude condition and largest for the randomly modulated condition. Differences in performance between the RAM and CA conditions were generally much larger for impaired listeners than for normally hearing listeners. With random amplitude modulation, DLFMs for the hearing-impaired subjects were approximately 36 times larger than those for normally hearing subjects.

Amplitude-modulation detection by gerbils in reverberant sound fields

2013 ◽  
Vol 302 ◽  
pp. 107-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Lingner ◽  
Kathrin Kugler ◽  
Benedikt Grothe ◽  
Lutz Wiegrebe
Keyword(s):  
Amplitude Modulation ◽  
Sound Fields ◽  
Modulation Detection

scholarly journals Multitasking with typical use of hearing aid noise reduction in older listeners

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Schoof ◽  
Pamela Souza
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Recognition Task ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Improve Performance ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Monitoring Task ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Dual Task Paradigm

Objective: Older hearing-impaired adults typically experience difficulties understanding speech in noise. Most hearing aids address this issue using digital noise reduction. While noise reduction does not necessarily improve speech recognition, it may reduce the resources required to process the speech signal. Those available resources may, in turn, aid the ability to perform another task while listening to speech (i.e., multitasking). This study examined to what extent changing the strength of digital noise reduction in hearing aids affects the ability to multitask. Design: Multitasking was measured using a dual-task paradigm, combining a speech recognition task and a visual monitoring task. The speech recognition task involved sentence recognition in the presence of six-talker babble at signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of 2 and 7 dB. Participants were fit with commercially-available hearing aids programmed under three noise reduction settings: off, mild, strong. Study sample: 18 hearing-impaired older adults. Results: There were no effects of noise reduction on the ability to multitask, or on the ability to recognize speech in noise. Conclusions: Adjustment of noise reduction settings in the clinic may not invariably improve performance for some tasks.

scholarly journals Amplitude modulation detection by human listeners in reverberant sound fields: carrier bandwidth effects and binaural versus monaural comparison

2012 ◽  
Vol 131 (4) ◽  
pp. 3517-3517
Author(s):  
Pavel Zahorik ◽  
Duck O. Kim ◽  
Shigeyuki Kuwada ◽  
Paul W. Anderson ◽  
Eugene Brandewie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Amplitude Modulation ◽  
Sound Fields ◽  
Modulation Detection
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document