Literature DB >> 12083223

Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing.

Judy R Dubno1, Amy R Horwitz, Jayne B Ahlstrom.   

Abstract

To assess age-related differences in benefit from masker modulation, younger and older adults with normal hearing but not identical audiograms listened to nonsense syllables in each of two maskers: (1) a steady-state noise shaped to match the long-term spectrum of the speech, and (2) this same noise modulated by a 10-Hz square wave, resulting in an interrupted noise. An additional low-level broadband noise was always present which was shaped to produce equivalent masked thresholds for all subjects. This minimized differences in speech audibility due to differences in quiet thresholds among subjects. An additional goal was to determine if age-related differences in benefit from modulation could be explained by differences in thresholds measured in simultaneous and forward maskers. Accordingly, thresholds for 350-ms pure tones were measured in quiet and in each masker; thresholds for 20-ms signals in forward and simultaneous masking were also measured at selected signal frequencies. To determine if benefit from modulated maskers varied with masker spectrum and to provide a comparison with previous studies, a subgroup of younger subjects also listened in steady-state and interrupted noise that was not spectrally shaped. Articulation index (AI) values were computed and speech-recognition scores were predicted for steady-state and interrupted noise; predicted benefit from modulation was also determined. Masked thresholds of older subjects were slightly higher than those of younger subjects; larger age-related threshold differences were observed for short-duration than for long-duration signals. In steady-state noise, speech recognition for older subjects was poorer than for younger subjects, which was partially attributable to older subjects' slightly higher thresholds in these maskers. In interrupted noise, although predicted benefit was larger for older than younger subjects, scores improved more for younger than for older subjects, particularly at the higher noise level. This may be related to age-related increases in thresholds in steady-state noise and in forward masking, especially at higher frequencies. Benefit of interrupted maskers was larger for unshaped than for speech-shaped noise, consistent with AI predictions.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12083223     DOI: 10.1121/1.1480421

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


  62 in total

1.  Individual differences in behavioral estimates of cochlear nonlinearities.

Authors:  Gayla L Poling; Amy R Horwitz; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-09-22

2.  Sentence recognition in noise promoting or suppressing masking release by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.

Authors:  Bomjun J Kwon; Trevor T Perry; Cassie L Wilhelm; Eric W Healy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Interrupted speech perception: the effects of hearing sensitivity and frequency resolution.

Authors:  Su-Hyun Jin; Peggy B Nelson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Aging, spatial cues, and single- versus dual-task performance in competing speech perception.

Authors:  Karen S Helfer; Jamie Chevalier; Richard L Freyman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Speech reception by listeners with real and simulated hearing impairment: effects of continuous and interrupted noise.

Authors:  Joseph G Desloge; Charlotte M Reed; Louis D Braida; Zachary D Perez; Lorraine A Delhorne
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Psychometric functions for sentence recognition in sinusoidally amplitude-modulated noises.

Authors:  Yi Shen; Nicole K Manzano; Virginia M Richards
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Forward Masking of the Speech-Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response.

Authors:  Sarah E Hodge; Denise C Menezes; Kevin D Brown; John H Grose
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Psychophysical estimates of nonlinear cochlear processing in younger and older listeners.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  An examination of speech recognition in a modulated background and of forward masking in younger and older listeners.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Sid P Bacon; Erica J Williams
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Perceptual sensitivity to, and electrophysiological encoding of, a complex periodic signal: effects of age.

Authors:  Sara K Mamo; John H Grose; Emily Buss
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 2.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.