Literature DB >> 23636209

Suprathreshold auditory processing and speech perception in noise: hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners.

Van Summers1, Matthew J Makashay, Sarah M Theodoroff, Marjorie R Leek.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is widely believed that suprathreshold distortions in auditory processing contribute to the speech recognition deficits experienced by hearing-impaired (HI) listeners in noise. Damage to outer hair cells and attendant reductions in peripheral compression and frequency selectivity may contribute to these deficits. In addition, reduced access to temporal fine structure (TFS) information in the speech waveform may play a role.
PURPOSE: To examine how measures of peripheral compression, frequency selectivity, and TFS sensitivity relate to speech recognition performance by HI listeners. To determine whether distortions in processing reflected by these psychoacoustic measures are more closely associated with speech deficits in steady-state or modulated noise. RESEARCH
DESIGN: Normal-hearing (NH) and HI listeners were tested on tasks examining frequency selectivity (notched-noise task), peripheral compression (temporal masking curve task), and sensitivity to TFS information (frequency modulation [FM] detection task) in the presence of random amplitude modulation. Performance was tested at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz at several presentation levels. The same listeners were tested on sentence recognition in steady-state and modulated noise at several signal-to-noise ratios. STUDY SAMPLE: Ten NH and 18 HI listeners were tested. NH listeners ranged in age from 36 to 80 yr (M = 57.6). For HI listeners, ages ranged from 58 to 87 yr (M = 71.8).
RESULTS: Scores on the FM detection task at 1 and 2 kHz were significantly correlated with speech scores in both noise conditions. Frequency selectivity and compression measures were not as clearly associated with speech performance. Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) analyses indicated only small differences in speech audibility across subjects for each signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) condition that would predict differences in speech scores no greater than 10% at a given SNR. Actual speech scores varied by as much as 80% across subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that distorted processing of audible speech cues was a primary factor accounting for differences in speech scores across subjects and that reduced ability to use TFS cues may be an important component of this distortion. The influence of TFS cues on speech scores was comparable in steady-state and modulated noise. Speech recognition was not related to audibility, represented by the SII, once high-frequency sensitivity differences across subjects (beginning at 5 kHz) were removed statistically. This might indicate that high-frequency hearing loss is associated with distortions in processing in lower-frequency regions. American Academy of Audiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23636209     DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.24.4.4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  25 in total

1.  Use of a glimpsing model to understand the performance of listeners with and without hearing loss in spatialized speech mixtures.

Authors:  Virginia Best; Christine R Mason; Jayaganesh Swaminathan; Elin Roverud; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Spectrotemporal modulation sensitivity for hearing-impaired listeners: dependence on carrier center frequency and the relationship to speech intelligibility.

Authors:  Golbarg Mehraei; Frederick J Gallun; Marjorie R Leek; Joshua G W Bernstein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Toward Routine Assessments of Auditory Filter Shape.

Authors:  Yi Shen; Allison B Kern; Virginia M Richards
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Speech Understanding in Noise for Adults With Cochlear Implants: Effects of Hearing Configuration, Source Location Certainty, and Head Movement.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Louise Loiselle; Sarah Natale; Sterling W Sheffield; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Mary S Dietrich; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Abnormal intelligibility of speech in competing speech and in noise in a frequency region where audiometric thresholds are near-normal for hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  Agnès C Léger; David T Ives; Christian Lorenzi
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-08-11       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Relating working memory to compression parameters in clinically fit hearing AIDS.

Authors:  Pamela E Souza; Lynn Sirow
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 1.493

7.  Processing Complex Sounds Passing through the Rostral Brainstem: The New Early Filter Model.

Authors:  John E Marsh; Tom A Campbell
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 4.677

8.  Individualized estimation of the Speech Intelligibility Index for short sentences: Test-retest reliability.

Authors:  Yi Shen; Donghyeon Yun; Yi Liu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Extended high-frequency hearing enhances speech perception in noise.

Authors:  Lina Motlagh Zadeh; Noah H Silbert; Katherine Sternasty; De Wet Swanepoel; Lisa L Hunter; David R Moore
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Comparing auditory filter bandwidths, spectral ripple modulation detection, spectral ripple discrimination, and speech recognition: Normal and impaired hearing.

Authors:  Evelyn Davies-Venn; Peggy Nelson; Pamela Souza
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.