Literature DB >> 23636211

Auditory models of suprathreshold distortion and speech intelligibility in persons with impaired hearing.

Joshua G W Bernstein1, Van Summers, Elena Grassi, Ken W Grant.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hearing-impaired (HI) individuals with similar ages and audiograms often demonstrate substantial differences in speech-reception performance in noise. Traditional models of speech intelligibility focus primarily on average performance for a given audiogram, failing to account for differences between listeners with similar audiograms. Improved prediction accuracy might be achieved by simulating differences in the distortion that speech may undergo when processed through an impaired ear. Although some attempts to model particular suprathreshold distortions can explain general speech-reception deficits not accounted for by audibility limitations, little has been done to model suprathreshold distortion and predict speech-reception performance for individual HI listeners. Auditory-processing models incorporating individualized measures of auditory distortion, along with audiometric thresholds, could provide a more complete understanding of speech-reception deficits by HI individuals. A computational model capable of predicting individual differences in speech-recognition performance would be a valuable tool in the development and evaluation of hearing-aid signal-processing algorithms for enhancing speech intelligibility.
PURPOSE: This study investigated whether biologically inspired models simulating peripheral auditory processing for individual HI listeners produce more accurate predictions of speech-recognition performance than audiogram-based models. RESEARCH
DESIGN: Psychophysical data on spectral and temporal acuity were incorporated into individualized auditory-processing models consisting of three stages: a peripheral stage, customized to reflect individual audiograms and spectral and temporal acuity; a cortical stage, which extracts spectral and temporal modulations relevant to speech; and an evaluation stage, which predicts speech-recognition performance by comparing the modulation content of clean and noisy speech. To investigate the impact of different aspects of peripheral processing on speech predictions, individualized details (absolute thresholds, frequency selectivity, spectrotemporal modulation [STM] sensitivity, compression) were incorporated progressively, culminating in a model simulating level-dependent spectral resolution and dynamic-range compression. STUDY SAMPLE: Psychophysical and speech-reception data from 11 HI and six normal-hearing listeners were used to develop the models. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eleven individualized HI models were constructed and validated against psychophysical measures of threshold, frequency resolution, compression, and STM sensitivity. Speech-intelligibility predictions were compared with measured performance in stationary speech-shaped noise at signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of -6, -3, 0, and 3 dB. Prediction accuracy for the individualized HI models was compared to the traditional audibility-based Speech Intelligibility Index (SII).
RESULTS: Models incorporating individualized measures of STM sensitivity yielded significantly more accurate within-SNR predictions than the SII. Additional individualized characteristics (frequency selectivity, compression) improved the predictions only marginally. A nonlinear model including individualized level-dependent cochlear-filter bandwidths, dynamic-range compression, and STM sensitivity predicted performance more accurately than the SII but was no more accurate than a simpler linear model. Predictions of speech-recognition performance simultaneously across SNRs and individuals were also significantly better for some of the auditory-processing models than for the SII.
CONCLUSIONS: A computational model simulating individualized suprathreshold auditory-processing abilities produced more accurate speech-intelligibility predictions than the audibility-based SII. Most of this advantage was realized by a linear model incorporating audiometric and STM-sensitivity information. Although more consistent with known physiological aspects of auditory processing, modeling level-dependent changes in frequency selectivity and gain did not result in more accurate predictions of speech-reception performance. American Academy of Audiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23636211     DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.24.4.6

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


  14 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Individual sensitivity to spectral and temporal cues in listeners with hearing impairment.

Authors:  Pamela E Souza; Richard A Wright; Michael C Blackburn; Rachael Tatman; Frederick J Gallun
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Modern prescription theory and application: realistic expectations for speech recognition with hearing AIDS.

Authors:  Earl E Johnson
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2013-11-18

6.  Individualized frequency importance functions for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  Sarah E Yoho; Adam K Bosen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Reliability and Repeatability of the Speech Cue Profile.

Authors:  Pamela Souza; Richard Wright; Frederick Gallun; Paul Reinhart
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Factors constraining the benefit to speech understanding of combining information from low-frequency hearing and a cochlear implant.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Sarah Cook; Anthony Spahr; Ting Zhang; Louise Loiselle; David Schramm; JoAnne Whittingham; Rene Gifford
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-10-05       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Does the Speech Cue Profile Affect Response to Amplitude Envelope Distortion?

Authors:  Pamela E Souza; Gregory Ellis; Kendra Marks; Richard Wright; Frederick Gallun
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  A hardware model of the auditory periphery to transduce acoustic signals into neural activity.

Authors:  Takashi Tateno; Jun Nishikawa; Nobuyoshi Tsuchioka; Hirofumi Shintaku; Satoyuki Kawano
Journal:  Front Neuroeng       Date:  2013-11-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.