Literature DB >> 20739892

Effects of age on F0 discrimination and intonation perception in simulated electric and electroacoustic hearing.

Pamela Souza1, Kathryn Arehart, Christi Wise Miller, Ramesh Kumar Muralimanohar.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Recent research suggests that older listeners may have difficulty processing information related to the fundamental frequency (F0) of voiced speech. In this study, the focus was on the mechanisms that may underlie this reduced ability. We examined whether increased age resulted in decreased ability to perceive F0 using fine-structure cues provided by the harmonic structure of voiced speech sounds or cues provided by high-rate envelope fluctuations (periodicity).
DESIGN: Younger listeners with normal hearing and older listeners with normal to near-normal hearing completed two tasks of F0 perception. In the first task (steady state F0), the fundamental frequency difference limen (F0DL) was measured adaptively for synthetic vowel stimuli. In the second task (time-varying F0), listeners relied on variations in F0 to judge intonation of synthetic diphthongs. For both tasks, three processing conditions were created: eight-channel vocoding that preserved periodicity cues to F0; a simulated electroacoustic stimulation condition, which consisted of high-frequency vocoder processing combined with a low-pass-filtered portion, and offered both periodicity and fine-structure cues to F0; and an unprocessed condition.
RESULTS: F0 difference limens for steady state vowel sounds and the ability to discern rising and falling intonations were significantly worse in the older subjects compared with the younger subjects. For both older and younger listeners, scores were lowest for the vocoded condition, and there was no difference in scores between the unprocessed and electroacoustic simulation conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Older listeners had difficulty using periodicity cues to obtain information related to talker fundamental frequency. However, performance was improved by combining periodicity cues with (low frequency) acoustic information, and that strategy should be considered in individuals who are appropriate candidates for such processing. For cochlear implant candidates, this effect might be achieved by partial electrode insertion providing acoustic stimulation in the low frequencies or by the combination of a traditional implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the opposite ear.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20739892      PMCID: PMC3010262          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181eccfe9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  52 in total

1.  Processing F0 with cochlear implants: Modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Shu-Chen Peng
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-23       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  How aging affects the recognition of emotional speech.

Authors:  Silke Paulmann; Marc D Pell; Sonja A Kotz
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2007-04-10       Impact factor: 2.381

3.  Acoustic cues to tonal contrasts in Mandarin: implications for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Yu-Ching Kuo; Stuart Rosen; Andrew Faulkner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Effects on speech intelligibility of temporal jittering and spectral smearing of the high-frequency components of speech.

Authors:  Ewen N MacDonald; M Kathleen Pichora-Fuller; Bruce A Schneider
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech.

Authors:  Pamela Souza; Stuart Rosen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  A glimpsing account for the benefit of simulated combined acoustic and electric hearing.

Authors:  Ning Li; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Effects of age on concurrent vowel perception in acoustic and simulated electroacoustic hearing.

Authors:  Kathryn H Arehart; Pamela E Souza; Ramesh Kumar Muralimanohar; Christi Wise Miller
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2010-08-05       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Hybrid 10 clinical trial: preliminary results.

Authors:  Bruce J Gantz; Marlan R Hansen; Christopher W Turner; Jacob J Oleson; Lina A Reiss; Aaron J Parkinson
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 1.854

9.  Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects.

Authors:  Helen E Cullington; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Achieving electric-acoustic benefit with a modulated tone.

Authors:  Christopher A Brown; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  17 in total

1.  The Effect of Dynamic Pitch on Speech Recognition in Temporally Modulated Noise.

Authors:  Jing Shen; Pamela E Souza
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  A neural basis of speech-in-noise perception in older adults.

Authors:  Samira Anderson; Alexandra Parbery-Clark; Han-Gyol Yi; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  On Older Listeners' Ability to Perceive Dynamic Pitch.

Authors:  Jing Shen; Richard Wright; Pamela E Souza
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Effects of age on melody and timbre perception in simulations of electro-acoustic and cochlear-implant hearing.

Authors:  Kathryn H Arehart; Naomi B H Croghan; Ramesh Kumar Muralimanohar
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Effects of age on concurrent vowel perception in acoustic and simulated electroacoustic hearing.

Authors:  Kathryn H Arehart; Pamela E Souza; Ramesh Kumar Muralimanohar; Christi Wise Miller
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2010-08-05       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Fundamental-frequency discrimination using noise-band-vocoded harmonic complexes in older listeners with normal hearing.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Monita Chatterjee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Age-Related Differences in Listening Effort During Degraded Speech Recognition.

Authors:  Kristina M Ward; Jing Shen; Pamela E Souza; Tina M Grieco-Calub
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  How does aging affect recognition of spectrally degraded speech?

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Kara J Vasil; Taylor L Wucinich; Natalie Safdar; Lauren Boyce; Christina Roup; Rachael Frush Holt; Oliver F Adunka; Irina Castellanos; Valeriy Shafiro; Derek M Houston; David B Pisoni
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 3.325

9.  The advantage of knowing the talker.

Authors:  Pamela Souza; Namita Gehani; Richard Wright; Daniel McCloy
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 1.664

10.  Effects of age and hearing loss on the relationship between discrimination of stochastic frequency modulation and speech perception.

Authors:  Stanley Sheft; Valeriy Shafiro; Christian Lorenzi; Rachel McMullen; Caitlin Farrell
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.