Literature DB >> 1629479

Overshoot in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects.

S P Bacon1, G A Takahashi.   

Abstract

Overshoot was measured in both ears of four subjects with normal hearing and in five subjects with permanent, sensorineural hearing loss (two with a unilateral loss). The masker was a 400-ms broadband noise presented at a spectrum level of 20, 30, or 40 dB SPL. The signal was a 10-ms sinusoid presented 1 or 195 ms after the onset of the masker. Signal frequency was 1.0 or 4.0 kHz, which placed the signal in a region of normal (1.0 kHz) or impaired (4.0 kHz) absolute sensitivity for the impaired ears. For the normal-hearing subjects, the effects of signal frequency and masker level were similar to those published previously. In particular, overshoot was larger at 4.0 than at 1.0 kHz, and overshoot at 4.0 kHz tended to decrease with increasing masker level. At 4.0 kHz, overshoot values were significantly larger in the normal ears: Maximum values ranged from about 7-26 dB in the normal ears, but were always less than 5 dB in the impaired ears. The smaller overshoot values resulted from the fact that thresholds in the short-delay condition were considerably better in the hearing-impaired subjects than in the normal-hearing subjects. At 1.0 kHz, overshoot values for the two groups of subjects more or less overlapped. The results suggest that permanent, sensorineural hearing loss disrupts the mechanisms responsible for a large overshoot effect.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1629479     DOI: 10.1121/1.402967

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


  22 in total

1.  The time course of cochlear gain reduction measured using a more efficient psychophysical technique.

Authors:  Elin Roverud; Elizabeth A Strickland
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Tinnitus Does Not Interfere with Auditory and Speech Perception.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Matthew Richardson; Katie Turner
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Temporal masking in electric hearing.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Hongbin Chen; Shilong Han
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-12

4.  The relationship between precursor level and the temporal effect.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Strickland
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  The role of temporal-masking patterns in the determination of subjective duration and loudness for ramped and damped sounds.

Authors:  Dennis T Ries; Robert S Schlauch; Jeffrey J DiGiovanni
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Use of stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions to investigate efferent and cochlear contributions to temporal overshoot.

Authors:  Douglas H Keefe; Kim S Schairer; John C Ellison; Denis F Fitzpatrick; Walt Jesteadt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Exploring the source of the mid-level hump for intensity discrimination in quiet and the effects of noise.

Authors:  Elin Roverud; Elizabeth A Strickland
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Psychoacoustic measurements of ipsilateral cochlear gain reduction as a function of signal frequency.

Authors:  Kristina DeRoy Milvae; Elizabeth A Strickland
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  The effects of preceding sound and stimulus duration on measures of suppression in younger and older adults.

Authors:  Erica L Hegland; Elizabeth A Strickland
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-12       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.