Literature DB >> 15532655

Informational masking in hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners: sensation level and decision weights.

Joshua M Alexander1, Robert A Lutfi.   

Abstract

Informational masking (IM) refers to elevations in signal threshold caused by masker uncertainty. The purpose of this study was to investigate two factors expected to influence IM in hearing-impaired listeners. Masked thresholds for a 2000-Hz signal in the presence of simultaneous multitone maskers were measured in 16 normal-hearing (NH) and 9 hearing-impaired (HI) listeners. The maskers were 70 dB SPL average total power and were comprised of fixed-frequency components between 522 and 8346 Hz that were separated from each other by at least 1/3 oct and from the signal by at least 2/3 octs. Masker uncertainty was manipulated by randomly presenting each masker component with probability p = 0.1,0.2,...,0.9, or 1.0 across different trial blocks. Energetic masking was estimated as the amount of masking for p = 1.0, where masker uncertainty was minimum. IM was estimated as the amount of masking in excess of energetic masking. Decision weights were estimated by a regression of the listener's yes/no responses against the presence or absence of the signal and masker components. The decision weights and sensation levels (SLs) of the stimulus components were incorporated as factors in a model that predicts individual differences in IM based on the level variance (in dB) at the output of independent auditory filters [Lutfi, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94, 748-758 (1993)]. The results showed much individual variability in IM for the NH listeners (over 40 dB), but little IM for most HI listeners. When masker components were presented to a group of NH listeners at SLs similar to the HI listeners, IM was also similar to the HI listeners. IM was also similar for both groups when the level per masker component was 10 dB SL. These results suggest that reduced masker SLs for HI listeners decrease IM by effectively reducing masker variance. Weighting efficiencies, computed by comparing each listener's pattern of weights to that of an ideal analytic listener, were a good predictor of individual differences in IM among the NH listeners. For the HI listeners weighting efficiency and IM were unrelated because of the large variation in masker SLs among individual listeners, the small variance in IM, and perhaps because broadened auditory filters in some listeners increased the covariance in auditory filter outputs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15532655     DOI: 10.1121/1.1784437

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


  18 in total

1.  Psychophysical reverse correlation with multiple response alternatives.

Authors:  Huanping Dai; Christophe Micheyl
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Excitation-based and informational masking of a tonal signal in a four-tone masker.

Authors:  Lori J Leibold; Jack J Hitchens; Emily Buss; Donna L Neff
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  The effect of onset asynchrony on relative weights in profile analysis.

Authors:  Jinyu Qian; Virginia M Richards
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  The information-divergence hypothesis of informational masking.

Authors:  Robert A Lutfi; Lynn Gilbertson; Inseok Heo; An-Chieh Chang; Jacob Stamas
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Differences in common psychoacoustical tasks by sex, menstrual cycle, and race.

Authors:  Dennis McFadden; Edward G Pasanen; Mindy M Maloney; Erin M Leshikar; Michelle H Pho
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Individual Differences in Behavioural Decision Weights Related to Irregularities in Cochlear Mechanics.

Authors:  Jungmee Lee; Inseok Heo; An-Chieh Chang; Kristen Bond; Christophe Stoelinga; Robert Lutfi; Glenis Long
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.622

7.  Detection of changes in luminance distributions.

Authors:  Thomas Y Lee; David H Brainard
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 2.240

8.  Spectral weights for sample discrimination as a function of overall level.

Authors:  Lori J Leibold; Hongyang Tan; Walt Jesteadt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Estimates of internal templates for the detection of sequential tonal patterns.

Authors:  Rong Huang; Virginia M Richards
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Advantages of binaural amplification to acceptable noise level of directional hearing aid users.

Authors:  Ja-Hee Kim; Jae Hee Lee; Ho-Ki Lee
Journal:  Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 3.372

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.