Literature DB >> 15957772

Comparing different estimates of cochlear compression in listeners with normal and impaired hearing.

Peninah S Rosengard1, Andrew J Oxenham, Louis D Braida.   

Abstract

A loss of cochlear compression may underlie many of the difficulties experienced by hearing-impaired listeners. Two behavioral forward-masking paradigms that have been used to estimate the magnitude of cochlear compression are growth of masking (GOM) and temporal masking (TM). The aim of this study was to determine whether these two measures produce within-subjects results that are consistent across a range of signal frequencies and, if so, to compare them in terms of reliability or efficiency. GOM and TM functions were measured in a group of five normal-hearing and five hearing-impaired listeners at signal frequencies of 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz. Compression values were derived from the masking data and confidence intervals were constructed around these estimates. Both measures produced comparable estimates of compression, but both measures have distinct advantages and disadvantages, so that the more appropriate measure depends on factors such as the frequency region of interest and the degree of hearing loss. Because of the long testing times needed, neither measure is suitable for clinical use in its current form.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15957772      PMCID: PMC1435868          DOI: 10.1121/1.1883367

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


  33 in total

1.  Cochlear nonlinearity between 500 and 8000 Hz in listeners with normal hearing.

Authors:  Enrique A Lopez-Poveda; Christopher J Plack; Ray Meddis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Psychophysical evidence for auditory compression at low characteristic frequencies.

Authors:  Christopher J Plack; Vit Drga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Effects of envelope fluctuations on gap detection.

Authors:  B R Glasberg; B C Moore
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Basilar membrane nonlinearity and its influence on auditory nerve rate-intensity functions.

Authors:  G K Yates
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  The development and decline of forward masking.

Authors:  R P Carlyon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Basilar membrane nonlinearity determines auditory nerve rate-intensity functions and cochlear dynamic range.

Authors:  G K Yates; I M Winter; D Robertson
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Auditory time constants for off-frequency forward masking in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  D A Nelson; R Pavlov
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1989-06

8.  Revised estimates of human cochlear tuning from otoacoustic and behavioral measurements.

Authors:  Christopher A Shera; John J Guinan; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-02-26       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Inferred basilar-membrane response functions for listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  Christopher J Plack; Vit Drga; Enrique A Lopez-Poveda
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 10.  Cochlear compression: perceptual measures and implications for normal and impaired hearing.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  26 in total

1.  Effect of human auditory efferent feedback on cochlear gain and compression.

Authors:  Ifat Yasin; Vit Drga; Christopher J Plack
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  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

3.  Effects of background noise level on behavioral estimates of basilar-membrane compression.

Authors:  Melanie J Gregan; Peggy B Nelson; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Recovery from on- and off-frequency forward masking in listeners with normal and impaired hearing.

Authors:  Magdalena Wojtczak; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Precursor effects on behavioral estimates of frequency selectivity and gain in forward masking.

Authors:  Skyler G Jennings; Elizabeth A Strickland; Michael G Heinz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Pitfalls in behavioral estimates of basilar-membrane compression in humans.

Authors:  Magdalena Wojtczak; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Low-frequency and high-frequency distortion product otoacoustic emission suppression in humans.

Authors:  Michael P Gorga; Stephen T Neely; Darcia M Dierking; Judy Kopun; Kristin Jolkowski; Kristin Groenenboom; Hongyang Tan; Bettina Stiegemann
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Temporal masking functions for listeners with real and simulated hearing loss.

Authors:  Joseph G Desloge; Charlotte M Reed; Louis D Braida; Zachary D Perez; Lorraine A Delhorne
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Auditory filter tuning inferred with short sinusoidal and notched-noise maskers.

Authors:  Skyler G Jennings; Elizabeth A Strickland
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 10.  Review article: review of the literature on temporal resolution in listeners with cochlear hearing impairment: a critical assessment of the role of suprathreshold deficits.

Authors:  Charlotte M Reed; Louis D Braida; Patrick M Zurek
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-12-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.