Literature DB >> 24121648

Spatial separation benefit for unaided and aided listening.

Jayne B Ahlstrom1, Amy R Horwitz, Judy R Dubno.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The benefit attributable to spatial separation of speech and noise was measured as a function of low-pass cutoff frequency with and without bilateral hearing aids.
DESIGN: Fourteen younger and 10 older adults with normal hearing and 12 older adults with mild-to-moderate sloping high frequency hearing loss were included to assess the effects of age and hearing loss. Subjects with hearing loss were provided commercially available bilateral hearing aids. Consonant recognition was measured at 70 dB SPL in a background of speech-shaped noise at 66 dB SPL. Speech and noise were low-pass filtered at 1.7, 3.4, and 7.1 kHz. Nonsense syllables were always at 0° and noise was at either 0° or 90°. Speech and noise spectra for all conditions were digitally recorded using a probe microphone placed in each ear canal of each subject. Spectra and levels of speech, and quiet thresholds for narrowband noises, were used to calculate the Articulation Index and provide predictions of unaided and aided (hearing-impaired only) consonant recognition, spatial benefit, and hearing aid benefit for each condition. Subjective ratings of workload (NASA Task Load Index) were obtained for all unaided and aided measures of speech recognition.
RESULTS: Consonant recognition in noise improved for all groups with speech and noise spatially separated and with the addition of high-frequency speech information. Scores were poorer overall for the older adults with hearing loss than for the other groups. For normal-hearing subjects, observed scores and spatial benefit were better than predicted. For hearing-impaired subjects, scores did not significantly improve with hearing aids, even with higher frequencies and spatial separation, and were poorer than predicted especially for aided listening. Similar to subjects with normal hearing, spatial benefit for hearing-impaired subjects was larger than predicted.
CONCLUSIONS: Younger and older adults with normal hearing benefited from spatial separation of speech and noise sources to a greater extent than predicted based on simple audibility. Thus, no age-related deficits in the use of interaural difference cues were observed. Although hearing aid benefit was negligible, perceived listening effort was lower aided than unaided, especially with spatial separation. Articulation Index predictions revealed that speech audibility was generally restored with hearing aids across a wide bandwidth of speech, especially in the far ear. Thus, reduced audibility was not a primary factor in limited hearing aid benefit, suggesting that peripheral, central-auditory and/or cognitive changes may have played a role. In contrast, unaided and aided spatial benefit was better than predicted, and spatial benefit was slightly larger with hearing aids than without. Thus, these older adults with hearing loss using bilateral hearing aids were able to take advantage of binaural cues to improve consonant recognition in noise.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24121648      PMCID: PMC3872487          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182a02274

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


  68 in total

1.  Temporal processing in the aging auditory system.

Authors:  A Strouse; D H Ashmead; R N Ohde; D W Grantham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss.

Authors:  C W Turner; K J Cummings
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 1.493

3.  Quantifying the contribution of audibility to recognition of compression-amplified speech.

Authors:  P E Souza; C W Turner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 4.  Efficacy of individual auditory training in adults: a systematic review of the evidence.

Authors:  Robert Sweetow; Catherine V Palmer
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.664

5.  Decline of speech understanding and auditory thresholds in the elderly.

Authors:  Pierre L Divenyi; Philip B Stark; Kara M Haupt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings--1. Patterns of benefit.

Authors:  Stuart Gatehouse; Graham Naylor; Claus Elberling
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.117

7.  Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings--2. Patterns of candidature.

Authors:  Stuart Gatehouse; Graham Naylor; Claus Elberling
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.117

8.  Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification.

Authors:  T Y Ching; H Dillon; D Byrne
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Benefits of audibility for listeners with severe high-frequency hearing loss.

Authors:  Andrea Simpson; Hugh J McDermott; Richard C Dowell
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2005-08-30       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  C A Hogan; C W Turner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  16 in total

1.  Self-Assessed Hearing Handicap in Older Adults With Poorer-Than-Predicted Speech Recognition in Noise.

Authors:  Mark A Eckert; Lois J Matthews; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Speech-perception training for older adults with hearing loss impacts word recognition and effort.

Authors:  Stefanie E Kuchinsky; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Stephanie L Cute; Larry E Humes; Judy R Dubno; Mark A Eckert
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2014-06-09       Impact factor: 4.016

3.  Neurodynamic evaluation of hearing aid features using EEG correlates of listening effort.

Authors:  Corinna Bernarding; Daniel J Strauss; Ronny Hannemann; Harald Seidler; Farah I Corona-Strauss
Journal:  Cogn Neurodyn       Date:  2017-02-16       Impact factor: 5.082

4.  Extended High-Frequency Bandwidth Improves Speech Reception in the Presence of Spatially Separated Masking Speech.

Authors:  Suzanne Carr Levy; Daniel J Freed; Michael Nilsson; Brian C J Moore; Sunil Puria
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

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.  The Benefits of Increased Sensation Level and Bandwidth for Spatial Release From Masking.

Authors:  Kasey M Jakien; Sean D Kampel; Samuel Y Gordon; Frederick J Gallun
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  A Novel Communication Value Task Demonstrates Evidence of Response Bias in Cases with Presbyacusis.

Authors:  Mark A Eckert; Kenneth I Vaden; Susan Teubner-Rhodes; Brandon S Bentzley
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Comparison of Gated Audiovisual Speech Identification in Elderly Hearing Aid Users and Elderly Normal-Hearing Individuals: Effects of Adding Visual Cues to Auditory Speech Stimuli.

Authors:  Shahram Moradi; Björn Lidestam; Jerker Rönnberg
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 3.293

10.  Validity and reliability of the Persian version of spatial hearing questionnaire.

Authors:  Maryam Delphi; Farzaneh Zamiri Abdolahi; Richard Tyler; Mahsa Bakhit; Nader Saki; Ahmad Reza Nazeri
Journal:  Med J Islam Repub Iran       Date:  2015-07-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.