Literature DB >> 3745670

Comparisons of frequency selectivity in simultaneous and forward masking for subjects with unilateral cochlear impairments.

B C Moore, B R Glasberg.   

Abstract

Two experiments are described in which frequency selectivity was estimated, in simultaneous and forward masking, for each ear of subjects with moderate (25-60 dB HL) unilateral cochlear hearing losses. In both experiments, the signal level was fixed for a given ear and type of masking (simultaneous or forward), and the masker level was varied to determine threshold, using an adaptive, two-alternative forced-choice procedure. In experiment I, the masker was a noise with a spectral notch centered at the signal frequency (either 1.0 or 1.5 kHz); threshold was determined as a function of notch width. Signal levels were chosen so that the noise level required at threshold for a notch width of zero was similar for the normal and impaired ear of each subject in both simultaneous and forward masking. The function relating threshold to notch width had a steeper slope for the normal ear than for the impaired ear of each subject. For the normal ears, these functions were steeper in forward masking than in simultaneous masking. This difference was interpreted as resulting from suppression. For the impaired ears, significant differences in the same direction were observed for three of the five subjects, but the differences were smaller. In experiment II, psychophysical tuning curves (PTCs) were determined in the presence of a fixed notched noise centered at the signal frequency (1.0 kHz). For the normal ears, the PTCs were sharper in forward masking than in simultaneous masking. For the impaired ears, the PTCs were similar in simultaneous and forward masking, but those in forward masking tended to be sharper at masker frequencies far removed from the signal frequency. Overall, the results suggest that suppression is reduced, but not completely absent in cases of moderate cochlear hearing loss.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3745670     DOI: 10.1121/1.394087

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  19 in total

1.  Sentence recognition in noise promoting or suppressing masking release by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.

Authors:  Bomjun J Kwon; Trevor T Perry; Cassie L Wilhelm; Eric W Healy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Level dependence of auditory filters in nonsimultaneous masking as a function of frequency.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham; Andrea M Simonson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Spatial and temporal effects of interleaved masking in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Bom Jun Kwon; Chris van den Honert
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-06-03

4.  Curriculum for graduate courses in amplification.

Authors:  C V Palmer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  1998-03

5.  Distortion-product otoacoustic emission suppression tuning curves in hearing-impaired humans.

Authors:  Alyson Gruhlke; Cori Birkholz; Stephen T Neely; Judy Kopun; Hongyang Tan; Walt Jesteadt; Kendra Schmid; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Cochlear-implant spatial selectivity with monopolar, bipolar and tripolar stimulation.

Authors:  Ziyan Zhu; Qing Tang; Fan-Gang Zeng; Tian Guan; Datian Ye
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Tone-burst auditory brainstem response wave V latencies in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired ears.

Authors:  James D Lewis; Judy Kopun; Stephen T Neely; Kendra K Schmid; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Exploration of stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emission suppression tuning in hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  Karolina K Charaziak; Pamela E Souza; Jonathan H Siegel
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2014-10-07       Impact factor: 2.117

9.  Effects of age and hearing impairment on the ability to benefit from temporal and spectral modulation.

Authors:  Joseph W Hall; Emily Buss; John H Grose; Patricia A Roush
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Perception of across-frequency asynchrony by listeners with cochlear hearing loss.

Authors:  Magdalena Wojtczak; Jordan A Beim; Christophe Micheyl; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-04-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.