Literature DB >> 22727697

Why middle-aged listeners have trouble hearing in everyday settings.

Dorea Ruggles1, Hari Bharadwaj, Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham.   

Abstract

Anecdotally, middle-aged listeners report difficulty conversing in social settings, even when they have normal audiometric thresholds [1-3]. Moreover, young adult listeners with "normal" hearing vary in their ability to selectively attend to speech amid similar streams of speech. Ignoring age, these individual differences correlate with physiological differences in temporal coding precision present in the auditory brainstem, suggesting that the fidelity of encoding of suprathreshold sound helps explain individual differences [4]. Here, we revisit the conundrum of whether early aging influences an individual's ability to communicate in everyday settings. Although absolute selective attention ability is not predicted by age, reverberant energy interferes more with selective attention as age increases. Breaking the brainstem response down into components corresponding to coding of stimulus fine structure and envelope, we find that age alters which brainstem component predicts performance. Specifically, middle-aged listeners appear to rely heavily on temporal fine structure, which is more disrupted by reverberant energy than temporal envelope structure is. In contrast, the fidelity of envelope cues predicts performance in younger adults. These results hint that temporal envelope cues influence spatial hearing in reverberant settings more than is commonly appreciated and help explain why middle-aged listeners have particular difficulty communicating in daily life.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22727697      PMCID: PMC3756149          DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.05.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Biol        ISSN: 0960-9822            Impact factor:   10.834


  41 in total

1.  The importance of cochlear processing for the formation of auditory brainstem and frequency following responses.

Authors:  Torsten Dau
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Temporal processing in low-frequency channels: effects of age and hearing loss in middle-aged listeners.

Authors:  Elizabeth D Leigh-Paffenroth; Saravanan Elangovan
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  Envelope and spectral frequency-following responses to vowel sounds.

Authors:  Steven J Aiken; Terence W Picton
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-08-19       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Speech segregation in rooms: monaural, binaural, and interacting effects of reverberation on target and interferer.

Authors:  Mathieu Lavandier; John F Culling
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Object-based auditory and visual attention.

Authors:  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2008-04-07       Impact factor: 20.229

6.  Normal hearing is not enough to guarantee robust encoding of suprathreshold features important in everyday communication.

Authors:  Dorea Ruggles; Hari Bharadwaj; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-08-15       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Auditory grouping.

Authors:  C J Darwin
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 20.229

8.  Perception of speech in noise: neural correlates.

Authors:  Judy H Song; Erika Skoe; Karen Banai; Nina Kraus
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2010-08-03       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 9.  Selective attention in normal and impaired hearing.

Authors:  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Virginia Best
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-10-30

10.  The frequency following response (FFR) may reflect pitch-bearing information but is not a direct representation of pitch.

Authors:  Hedwig E Gockel; Robert P Carlyon; Anahita Mehta; Christopher J Plack
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-08-09
View more
  76 in total

1.  The neural encoding of formant frequencies contributing to vowel identification in normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Kelly Tremblay; Christopher G Clinard; Richard A Wright; Elad Sagi; Mario Svirsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  A comparison of spectral magnitude and phase-locking value analyses of the frequency-following response to complex tones.

Authors:  Li Zhu; Hari Bharadwaj; Jing Xia; Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Age-related cochlear synaptopathy: an early-onset contributor to auditory functional decline.

Authors:  Yevgeniya Sergeyenko; Kumud Lall; M Charles Liberman; Sharon G Kujawa
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-08-21       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Masking Differentially Affects Envelope-following Responses in Young and Aged Animals.

Authors:  Jesyin Lai; Edward L Bartlett
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 3.590

5.  Perceptual sensitivity to, and electrophysiological encoding of, a complex periodic signal: effects of age.

Authors:  Sara K Mamo; John H Grose; Emily Buss
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 2.117

6.  Rapid acquisition of auditory subcortical steady state responses using multichannel recordings.

Authors:  Hari M Bharadwaj; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-01-29       Impact factor: 3.708

7.  Competing Speech Perception in Middle Age.

Authors:  Karen S Helfer
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.493

8.  Temporal Processing Deficits in Middle Age.

Authors:  John H Grose; Sara K Mamo; Emily Buss; Joseph W Hall
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.493

9.  The ability to move to a beat is linked to the consistency of neural responses to sound.

Authors:  Adam Tierney; Nina Kraus
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Adaptive temporal encoding leads to a background-insensitive cortical representation of speech.

Authors:  Nai Ding; Jonathan Z Simon
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 6.167

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.