Literature DB >> 19813805

Informational masking in young and elderly listeners for speech masked by simultaneous speech and noise.

Trevor R Agus1, Michael A Akeroyd, Stuart Gatehouse, David Warden.   

Abstract

Three experiments measured the effects of age on informational masking of speech by competing speech. The experiments were designed to minimize the energetic contributions of the competing speech so that informational masking could be measured with no large corrections for energetic masking. Experiment 1 used a "speech-in-speech-in-noise" design, in which the competing speech was presented in noise at a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of -4 dB. This ensured that the noise primarily contributed the energetic masking but the competing speech contributed the informational masking. Equal amounts of informational masking (3 dB) were observed for young and elderly listeners, although less was found for hearing-impaired listeners. Experiment 2 tested a range of SNRs in this design and showed that informational masking increased with SNR up to about an SNR of -4 dB, but decreased thereafter. Experiment 3 further reduced the energetic contribution of the competing speech by filtering it into different frequency bands from the target speech. The elderly listeners again showed approximately the same amount of informational masking (4-5 dB), although some elderly listeners had particular difficulty understanding these stimuli in any condition. On the whole, these results suggest that young and elderly listeners were equally susceptible to informational masking.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19813805     DOI: 10.1121/1.3205403

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


  27 in total

1.  Stimulus factors influencing spatial release from speech-on-speech masking.

Authors:  Gerald Kidd; Christine R Mason; Virginia Best; Nicole Marrone
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  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

3.  Spatial release from masking in normally hearing and hearing-impaired listeners as a function of the temporal overlap of competing talkers.

Authors:  Virginia Best; Christine R Mason; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Spatial release from masking as a function of the spectral overlap of competing talkers.

Authors:  Virginia Best; Eric R Thompson; Christine R Mason; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  [Speech audiometric assessment of informational masking. German version].

Authors:  S Rählmann; H Meister
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.284

6.  Speech audiometric assessment of informational masking.

Authors:  S Rählmann; H Meister
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 1.284

7.  Impaired timing and frequency discrimination in high-functioning autism spectrum disorders.

Authors:  Anjali Bhatara; Talin Babikian; Elizabeth Laugeson; Raffi Tachdjian; Yvonne S Sininger
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2013-10

8.  Correlations of decision weights and cognitive function for the masked discrimination of vowels by young and old adults.

Authors:  Lynn Gilbertson; Robert A Lutfi
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-09-27       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Switching Streams Across Ears to Evaluate Informational Masking of Speech-on-Speech.

Authors:  Axelle Calcus; Tim Schoof; Stuart Rosen; Barbara Shinn-Cunningham; Pamela Souza
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Stimulus and listener factors affecting age-related changes in competing speech perception.

Authors:  Karen S Helfer; Richard L Freyman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.