Suprathreshold Auditory Processing and Speech Perception in Noise: Hearing-Impaired and Normal-Hearing Listeners

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (04) ◽  
pp. 274-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Van Summers ◽  
Matthew J. Makashay ◽  
Sarah M. Theodoroff ◽  
Marjorie R. Leek
Keyword(s):  
Steady State ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Detection Task ◽  
Frequency Selectivity ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Peripheral Compression

Background: It is widely believed that suprathreshold distortions in auditory processing contribute to the speech recognition deficits experienced by hearing-impaired (HI) listeners in noise. Damage to outer hair cells and attendant reductions in peripheral compression and frequency selectivity may contribute to these deficits. In addition, reduced access to temporal fine structure (TFS) information in the speech waveform may play a role. Purpose: To examine how measures of peripheral compression, frequency selectivity, and TFS sensitivity relate to speech recognition performance by HI listeners. To determine whether distortions in processing reflected by these psychoacoustic measures are more closely associated with speech deficits in steady-state or modulated noise. Research Design: Normal-hearing (NH) and HI listeners were tested on tasks examining frequency selectivity (notched-noise task), peripheral compression (temporal masking curve task), and sensitivity to TFS information (frequency modulation [FM] detection task) in the presence of random amplitude modulation. Performance was tested at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz at several presentation levels. The same listeners were tested on sentence recognition in steady-state and modulated noise at several signal-to-noise ratios. Study Sample: Ten NH and 18 HI listeners were tested. NH listeners ranged in age from 36 to 80 yr (M = 57.6). For HI listeners, ages ranged from 58 to 87 yr (M = 71.8). Results: Scores on the FM detection task at 1 and 2 kHz were significantly correlated with speech scores in both noise conditions. Frequency selectivity and compression measures were not as clearly associated with speech performance. Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) analyses indicated only small differences in speech audibility across subjects for each signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) condition that would predict differences in speech scores no greater than 10% at a given SNR. Actual speech scores varied by as much as 80% across subjects. Conclusions: The results suggest that distorted processing of audible speech cues was a primary factor accounting for differences in speech scores across subjects and that reduced ability to use TFS cues may be an important component of this distortion. The influence of TFS cues on speech scores was comparable in steady-state and modulated noise. Speech recognition was not related to audibility, represented by the SII, once high-frequency sensitivity differences across subjects (beginning at 5 kHz) were removed statistically. This might indicate that high-frequency hearing loss is associated with distortions in processing in lower-frequency regions.

Fitting and Verification of Frequency Modulation Systems on Children with Normal Hearing

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (06) ◽  
pp. 529-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin C. Schafer ◽  
Danielle Bryant ◽  
Katie Sanders ◽  
Nicole Baldus ◽  
Katherine Algier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Frequency Modulation ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
The Real ◽  
Hearing Sensitivity ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: Several recent investigations support the use of frequency modulation (FM) systems in children with normal hearing and auditory processing or listening disorders such as those diagnosed with auditory processing disorders, autism spectrum disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Friedreich ataxia, and dyslexia. The American Academy of Audiology (AAA) published suggested procedures, but these guidelines do not cite research evidence to support the validity of the recommended procedures for fitting and verifying nonoccluding open-ear FM systems on children with normal hearing. Documenting the validity of these fitting procedures is critical to maximize the potential FM-system benefit in the abovementioned populations of children with normal hearing and those with auditory-listening problems. Purpose: The primary goal of this investigation was to determine the validity of the AAA real-ear approach to fitting FM systems on children with normal hearing. The secondary goal of this study was to examine speech-recognition performance in noise and loudness ratings without and with FM systems in children with normal hearing sensitivity. Research Design: A two-group, cross-sectional design was used in the present study. Study Sample: Twenty-six typically functioning children, ages 5–12 yr, with normal hearing sensitivity participated in the study. Intervention: Participants used a nonoccluding open-ear FM receiver during laboratory-based testing. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants completed three laboratory tests: (1) real-ear measures, (2) speech recognition performance in noise, and (3) loudness ratings. Four real-ear measures were conducted to (1) verify that measured output met prescribed-gain targets across the 1000–4000 Hz frequency range for speech stimuli, (2) confirm that the FM-receiver volume did not exceed predicted uncomfortable loudness levels, and (3 and 4) measure changes to the real-ear unaided response when placing the FM receiver in the child’s ear. After completion of the fitting, speech recognition in noise at a –5 signal-to-noise ratio and loudness ratings at a +5 signal-to-noise ratio were measured in four conditions: (1) no FM system, (2) FM receiver on the right ear, (3) FM receiver on the left ear, and (4) bilateral FM system. Results: The results of this study suggested that the slightly modified AAA real-ear measurement procedures resulted in a valid fitting of one FM system on children with normal hearing. On average, prescriptive targets were met for 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz within 3 dB, and maximum output of the FM system never exceeded and was significantly lower than predicted uncomfortable loudness levels for the children. There was a minimal change in the real-ear unaided response when the open-ear FM receiver was placed into the ear. Use of the FM system on one or both ears resulted in significantly better speech recognition in noise relative to a no-FM condition, and the unilateral and bilateral FM receivers resulted in a comfortably loud signal when listening in background noise. Conclusions: Real-ear measures are critical for obtaining an appropriate fit of an FM system on children with normal hearing.

Speech Recognition in Amplitude-Modulated Noise of Listeners With Normal and Listeners With Impaired Hearing

1995 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 222-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie S. Eisenberg ◽  
Donald D. Dirks ◽  
Theodore S. Bell
Keyword(s):  
Steady State ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Broadband Noise ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Frequency Range ◽  
Release From Masking ◽  
High Pass ◽  
Nonsense Syllables

The effect of amplitude-modulated (AM) noise on speech recognition in listeners with normal and impaired hearing was investigated in two experiments. In the first experiment, nonsense syllables were presented in high-pass steady-state or AM noise to determine whether the release from masking in AM noise relative to steady-state noise was significantly different between normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects when the two groups listened under equivalent masker conditions. The normal-hearing subjects were tested in the experimental noise under two conditions: (a) in a spectrally shaped broadband noise that produced pure tone thresholds equivalent to those of the hearing-impaired subjects, and (b) without the spectrally shaped broadband noise. The release from masking in AM noise was significantly greater for the normal-hearing group than for either the hearing-impaired or masked normal-hearing groups. In the second experiment, normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects identified nonsense syllables in isolation and target words in sentences in steady-state or AM noise adjusted to approximate the spectral shape and gain of a hearing aid prescription. The release from masking was significantly less for the subjects with impaired hearing. These data suggest that hearingimpaired listeners obtain less release from masking in AM noise than do normal-hearing listeners even when both the speech and noise are presented at levels that are above threshold over much of the speech frequency range.

F0 Processing and the Seperation of Competing Speech Signals by Listeners With Normal Hearing and With Hearing Loss

1998 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 1294-1306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Van Summers ◽  
Marjorie R. Leek
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Steady State ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Speech Signals ◽  
Group Level ◽  
Competing Speech

Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners were tested to determine F0 difference limens for synthetic tokens of 5 steady-state vowels. The same stimuli were then used in a concurrent-vowel labeling task with the F0 difference between concurrent vowels ranging between 0 and 4 semitones. Finally, speech recognition was tested for synthetic sentences in the presence of a competing synthetic voice with the same, a higher, or a lower F0. Normal-hearing listeners and hearing-impaired listeners with small F0-discrimination (ΔF0) thresholds showed improvements in vowel labeling when there were differences in F0 between vowels on the concurrent-vowel task. Impaired listeners with high ΔF0 thresholds did not benefit from F0 differences between vowels. At the group level, normalhearing listeners benefited more than hearing-impaired listeners from F0 differences between competing signals on both the concurrent-vowel and sentence tasks. However, for individual listeners, ΔF0 thresholds and improvements in concurrent-vowel labeling based on F0 differences were only weakly associated with F0-based improvements in performance on the sentence task. For both the concurrent-vowel and sentence tasks, there was evidence that the ability to benefit from F0 differences between competing signals decreases with age.

Auditory Frequency Selectivity in Normal and Presbycusic Subjects

1980 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 603-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H. Margolis ◽  
Seth M. Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Cutoff Frequency ◽  
Frequency Selectivity ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Critical Ratio ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Noise Masker ◽  
Low Pass ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Stable Estimate

Auditory frequency selectivity was inferred from measurements of the detectability of tonal signals as a function of the cutoff frequency of a low-pass computer-generated noise masker. In Experiment I the effect of small changes in signal-to-noise ratio on inferred auditory frequency selectivity was studied. In Experiment II, frequency selectivity was determined for five normal-hearing subjects and four subjects with sensorineural hearing loss due to presbycusis. Critical ratios (signal-to-noise ratio at masked threshold) also were determined in Experiment II. The results of Experiment I indicate that the low-pass masking experiment provides a stable estimate of the width, but not the position, of the critical masking band. Experiment II revealed elevated critical ratios for three of the four presbycusic subjects. Some hearing-impaired subjects appeared to have normal frequency selectivity despite elevated critical ratios. Other presbycusic subjects demonstrated impaired auditory frequency selectivity. The results suggest that critical ratio and critical masking band data are free to vary independently in hearing-impaired subjects.

Speech recognition of normal‐hearing and hearing‐impaired listeners in amplitude‐modulated noise

1994 ◽  
Vol 95 (5) ◽  
pp. 2992-2993
Author(s):  
Laurie S. Eisenberg ◽  
Donald D. Dirks ◽  
Theodore S. Bell
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired

scholarly journals Tinnitus impairs segregation of competing speech in normal-hearing listeners

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Wenyi Liu ◽  
Bing Wang ◽  
Bing Chen ◽  
John J. Galvin ◽  
Qian-Jie Fu
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Informational Masking ◽  
Spatial Cues ◽  
Processing Resources ◽  
Lexical Interference ◽  
Competing Speech

AbstractMany tinnitus patients report difficulties understanding speech in noise or competing talkers, despite having “normal” hearing in terms of audiometric thresholds. The interference caused by tinnitus is more likely central in origin. Release from informational masking (more central in origin) produced by competing speech may further illuminate central interference due to tinnitus. In the present study, masked speech understanding was measured in normal hearing listeners with or without tinnitus. Speech recognition thresholds were measured for target speech in the presence of multi-talker babble or competing speech. For competing speech, speech recognition thresholds were measured for different cue conditions (i.e., with and without target-masker sex differences and/or with and without spatial cues). The present data suggest that tinnitus negatively affected masked speech recognition even in individuals with no measurable hearing loss. Tinnitus severity appeared to especially limit listeners’ ability to segregate competing speech using talker sex differences. The data suggest that increased informational masking via lexical interference may tax tinnitus patients’ central auditory processing resources.

Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners

2004 ◽  
Vol 116 (4) ◽  
pp. 2395-2405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mead C. Killion ◽  
Patricia A. Niquette ◽  
Gail I. Gudmundsen ◽  
Lawrence J. Revit ◽  
Shilpi Banerjee
Keyword(s):  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Measuring Signal

Psychometric Functions for Shortened Administrations of a Speech Recognition Approach Using Tri-Word Presentations and Phonemic Scoring

2012 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 879-891 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley A. Gelfand ◽  
Jessica T. Gelfand
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Young Adult ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Recognition Test ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Original Study ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Adult Participants

Method Complete psychometric functions for phoneme and word recognition scores at 8 signal-to-noise ratios from −15 dB to 20 dB were generated for the first 10, 20, and 25, as well as all 50, three-word presentations of the Tri-Word or Computer Assisted Speech Recognition Assessment (CASRA) Test (Gelfand, 1998) based on the results of 12 normal-hearing young adult participants from the original study. Results The psychometric functions for both phoneme and word scores were very similar and essentially overlapping for all set sizes. Performance on the shortened tests accounted for 98.8% to 99.5% of the full (50-set) test variance with phoneme scoring, and 95.8% to 99.2% of the full test variance with word scoring. Shortening the tests accounted for little if any of the variance in the slopes of the functions. Conclusions The psychometric functions for abbreviated versions of the Tri-Word speech recognition test using 10, 20, and 25 presentation sets were described and are comparable to those of the original 50-presentation approach for both phoneme and word scoring in healthy, normal-hearing, young adult participants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document