Literature DB >> 11519583

Effects of low-pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies.

D A Vickers1, B C Moore, T Baer.   

Abstract

A dead region is a region of the cochlea where there are no functioning inner hair cells (IHCs) and/or neurons; it can be characterized in terms of the characteristic frequencies of the IHCs bordering that region. We examined the effect of high-frequency amplification on speech perception for subjects with high-frequency hearing loss with and without dead regions. The limits of any dead regions were defined by measuring psychophysical tuning curves and were confirmed using the TEN test described in Moore et al. [Br. J. Audiol. 34, 205-224 (2000)]. The speech stimuli were vowel-consonant-vowel (VCV) nonsense syllables, using one of three vowels (/i/, /a/, and /u/) and 21 different consonants. In a baseline condition, subjects were tested using broadband stimuli with a nominal input level of 65 dB SPL. Prior to presentation via Sennheiser HD580 earphones, the stimuli were subjected to the frequency-gain characteristic prescribed by the "Cambridge" formula, which is intended to give speech at 65 dB SPL the same overall loudness as for a normal listener, and to make the average loudness of the speech the same for each critical band over the frequency range important for speech intelligibility (in a listener without a dead region). The stimuli for all other conditions were initially subjected to this same frequency-gain characteristic. Then, the speech was low-pass filtered with various cutoff frequencies. For subjects without dead regions, performance generally improved progressively with increasing cutoff frequency. This indicates that they benefited from high-frequency information. For subjects with dead regions, two patterns of performance were observed. For most subjects, performance improved with increasing cutoff frequency until the cutoff frequency was somewhat above the estimated edge frequency of the dead region, but hardly changed with further increases. For a few subjects, performance initially improved with increasing cutoff frequency and then worsened with further increases, although the worsening was significant only for one subject. The results have important implications for the fitting of hearing aids.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11519583     DOI: 10.1121/1.1381534

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  46 in total

1.  Improvements in speech understanding with wireless binaural broadband digital hearing instruments in adults with sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  Brian M Kreisman; Annette G Mazevski; Donald J Schum; Ravichandran Sockalingam
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-05-10

2.  Multicenter clinical trial of the Nucleus Hybrid S8 cochlear implant: Final outcomes.

Authors:  Bruce J Gantz; Camille Dunn; Jacob Oleson; Marlan Hansen; Aaron Parkinson; Christopher Turner
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 3.325

Review 3.  Guidelines for Best Practice in the Audiological Management of Adults with Severe and Profound Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Laura Turton; Pamela Souza; Linda Thibodeau; Louise Hickson; René Gifford; Judith Bird; Maren Stropahl; Lorraine Gailey; Bernadette Fulton; Nerina Scarinci; Katie Ekberg; Barbra Timmer
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2020-12-16

4.  Multiple looks in speech sound discrimination in adults.

Authors:  Rachael Frush Holt; Arlene Earley Carney
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 5.  Combined acoustic and electric hearing: preserving residual acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Christopher W Turner; Lina A J Reiss; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Factors affecting the benefits of high-frequency amplification.

Authors:  Amy R Horwitz; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Spatial separation benefit for unaided and aided listening.

Authors:  Jayne B Ahlstrom; Amy R Horwitz; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  The effects of hearing loss on the contribution of high- and low-frequency speech information to speech understanding. II. Sloping hearing loss.

Authors:  Benjamin W Y Hornsby; Todd A Ricketts
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Minimum Reporting Standards for Adult Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Oliver F Adunka; Bruce J Gantz; Camille Dunn; Richard K Gurgel; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-03-20       Impact factor: 3.497

10.  Voiced initial consonant perception deficits in older listeners with hearing loss and good and poor word recognition.

Authors:  Susan L Phillips; Scott J Richter; David McPherson
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 2.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.