Literature DB >> 19894845

Consonant recognition loss in hearing impaired listeners.

Sandeep A Phatak1, Yang-Soo Yoon, David M Gooler, Jont B Allen.   

Abstract

This paper presents a compact graphical method for comparing the performance of individual hearing impaired (HI) listeners with that of an average normal hearing (NH) listener on a consonant-by-consonant basis. This representation, named the consonant loss profile (CLP), characterizes the effect of a listener's hearing loss on each consonant over a range of performance. The CLP shows that the consonant loss, which is the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) difference at equal NH and HI scores, is consonant-dependent and varies with the score. This variation in the consonant loss reveals that hearing loss renders some consonants unintelligible, while it reduces noise-robustness of some other consonants. The conventional SNR-loss metric DeltaSNR(50), defined as the SNR difference at 50% recognition score, is insufficient to capture this variation. The DeltaSNR(50) value is on average 12 dB lower when measured with sentences using standard clinical procedures than when measured with nonsense syllables. A listener with symmetric hearing loss may not have identical CLPs for both ears. Some consonant confusions by HI listeners are influenced by the high-frequency hearing loss even at a presentation level as high as 85 dB sound pressure level.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19894845      PMCID: PMC2787079          DOI: 10.1121/1.3238257

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


  24 in total

1.  Dimensions of consonant perception in normal and hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  B E Walden; A A Montgomery
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1975-09

2.  The development of recorded auditory tests for measuring hearing loss for speech.

Authors:  C V HUDGINS; J E HAWKINS
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1947-01       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  Phoneme feature perception in noise by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects.

Authors:  S Gordon-Salant
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1985-03

4.  Evaluation of hearing-impaired listeners using a Nonsense-syllable Test. II. Syllable recognition and consonant confusion patterns.

Authors:  J R Dubno; D D Dirks; L R Langhofer
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1982-03

5.  Perceptual invariance and onset spectra for stop consonants in different vowel environments.

Authors:  S E Blumstein; K N Stevens
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1980-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Features from normal and sensorineural listeners' nonsense syllable test errors.

Authors:  K J Doyle; J L Danhauer; B J Edgerton
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1981 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids.

Authors:  R Plomp
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1978-02       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Recognition of nonsense syllables by hearing-impaired listeners and by noise-masked normal hearers.

Authors:  L E Humes; D D Dirks; T S Bell; G E Kincaid
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1987-03       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Consonant reception in noise by listeners with mild and moderate sensorineural hearing impairment.

Authors:  P M Zurek; L A Delhorne
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired.

Authors:  R Plomp
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1986-06
View more
  10 in total

1.  The influence of stop consonants' perceptual features on the Articulation Index model.

Authors:  Riya Singh; Jont B Allen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Evaluating hearing aid amplification using idiosyncratic consonant errors.

Authors:  Ali Abavisani; Jont B Allen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Relationship between consonant recognition in noise and hearing threshold.

Authors:  Yang-soo Yoon; Jont B Allen; David M Gooler
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Phonological and semantic similarity of misperceived words in babble: Effects of sentence context, age, and hearing loss.

Authors:  Blythe Vickery; Daniel Fogerty; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-01       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Aided and unaided speech perception by older hearing impaired listeners.

Authors:  David L Woods; Tanya Arbogast; Zoe Doss; Masood Younus; Timothy J Herron; E William Yund
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Speech perception in older hearing impaired listeners: benefits of perceptual training.

Authors:  David L Woods; Zoe Doss; Timothy J Herron; Tanya Arbogast; Masood Younus; Marc Ettlinger; E William Yund
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Substitution Patterns of Phoneme Errors in Hearing Aid and Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Woojae Han; Hyungi Chun; Gibbeum Kim; In-Ki Jin
Journal:  J Audiol Otol       Date:  2017-03-30

8.  High-Frequency Sensorineural Hearing Loss Alters Cue-Weighting Strategies for Discriminating Stop Consonants in Noise.

Authors:  Léo Varnet; Chloé Langlet; Christian Lorenzi; Diane S Lazard; Christophe Micheyl
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

9.  Acoustic-Phonetic Mismatches Impair Serial Recall of Degraded Words.

Authors:  Adam K Bosen; Elizabeth Monzingo; Angela M AuBuchon
Journal:  Audit Percept Cogn       Date:  2020-11-11

10.  Development and Pilot Testing of Smartphone-Based Hearing Test Application.

Authors:  Kashyap Patel; Linda Thibodeau; David McCullough; Emma Freeman; Issa Panahi
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 3.390

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.