Literature DB >> 32032222

Spectral-Temporal Trade-Off in Vocoded Sentence Recognition: Effects of Age, Hearing Thresholds, and Working Memory.

Maureen J Shader1, Calli M Yancey, Sandra Gordon-Salant, Matthew J Goupell.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Cochlear implant (CI) signal processing degrades the spectral components of speech. This requires CI users to rely primarily on temporal cues, specifically, amplitude modulations within the temporal envelope, to recognize speech. Auditory temporal processing ability for envelope modulations worsens with advancing age, which may put older CI users at a disadvantage compared with younger users. To evaluate how potential age-related limitations for processing temporal envelope modulations impact spectrally degraded sentence recognition, noise-vocoded sentences were presented to younger and older normal-hearing listeners in quiet. Envelope modulation rates were varied from 10 to 500 Hz by adjusting the low-pass filter cutoff frequency (LPF). The goal of this study was to evaluate if age impacts recognition of noise-vocoded speech and if this age-related limitation existed for a specific range of envelope modulation rates.
DESIGN: Noise-vocoded sentence recognition in quiet was measured as a function of number of spectral channels (4, 6, 8, and 12 channels) and LPF (10, 20, 50, 75, 150, 375, and 500 Hz) in 15 younger normal-hearing listeners and 15 older near-normal-hearing listeners. Hearing thresholds and working memory were assessed to determine the extent to which these factors were related to recognition of noise-vocoded sentences.
RESULTS: Younger listeners achieved significantly higher sentence recognition scores than older listeners overall. Performance improved in both groups as the number of spectral channels and LPF increased. As the number of spectral channels increased, the differences in sentence recognition scores between groups decreased. A spectral-temporal trade-off was observed in both groups in which performance in the 8- and 12-channel conditions plateaued with lower-frequency amplitude modulations compared with the 4- and 6-channel conditions. There was no interaction between age group and LPF, suggesting that both groups obtained similar improvements in performance with increasing LPF. The lack of an interaction between age and LPF may be due to the nature of the task of recognizing sentences in quiet. Audiometric thresholds were the only significant predictor of vocoded sentence recognition. Although performance on the working memory task declined with advancing age, working memory scores did not predict sentence recognition.
CONCLUSIONS: Younger listeners outperformed older listeners for recognizing noise-vocoded sentences in quiet. The negative impact of age was reduced when ample spectral information was available. Age-related limitations for recognizing vocoded sentences were not affected by the temporal envelope modulation rate of the signal, but instead, appear to be related to a generalized task limitation or to reduced audibility of the signal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32032222      PMCID: PMC7415490          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000840

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.562


  54 in total

1.  Verbal information-processing capabilities and cochlear implants: implications for preoperative predictors of speech understanding.

Authors:  B Lyxell; J Andersson; S Arlinger; G Bredberg; H Harder; J Ronnberg
Journal:  J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ       Date:  1996

Review 2.  Speech processing in vocoder-centric cochlear implants.

Authors:  Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2006

3.  Spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition in noise.

Authors:  Li Xu; Yunfang Zheng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Mediators of long-term memory performance across the life span.

Authors:  D C Park; A D Smith; G Lautenschlager; J L Earles; D Frieske; M Zwahr; C L Gaines
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  1996-12

5.  Older and younger adult cochlear implant users: speech recognition in quiet and noise, quality of life, and music perception.

Authors:  Douglas P Sladen; Amanda Zappler
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.493

6.  Human temporal auditory acuity as assessed by envelope following responses.

Authors:  David W Purcell; Sasha M John; Bruce A Schneider; Terence W Picton
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 7.  Working memory: theories, models, and controversies.

Authors:  Alan Baddeley
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 24.137

8.  Gender identification in younger and older adults: use of spectral and temporal cues in noise-vocoded speech.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz; Monita Chatterjee
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Cochlear implantation in the elderly.

Authors:  Karin Lundin; Andreas Näsvall; Susanne Köbler; Göran Linde; Helge Rask-Andersen
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2012-09-18

10.  Cochlear implant outcomes in the elderly.

Authors:  Veronique Chatelin; Eugene J Kim; Colin Driscoll; Jannine Larky; Colleen Polite; Laura Price; Anil K Lalwani
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  3 in total

1.  Open-Set Phoneme Recognition Performance With Varied Temporal Cues in Younger and Older Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Maureen J Shader; Bomjun J Kwon; Sandra Gordon-Salant; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 2.674

2.  Recognition of vocoded words and sentences in quiet and multi-talker babble with children and adults.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Garrison T Draves; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-29       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  The recognition of time-compressed speech as a function of age in listeners with cochlear implants or normal hearing.

Authors:  Anna R Tinnemore; Lauren Montero; Sandra Gordon-Salant; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 5.702

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.