Literature DB >> 7731213

Speech recognition in amplitude-modulated noise of listeners with normal and listeners with impaired hearing.

L S Eisenberg1, D D Dirks, T S Bell.   

Abstract

The effect of amplitude-modulated (AM) noise on speech recognition in listeners with normal and impaired hearing was investigated in two experiments. In the first experiment nonsense syllables were presented in high-pass steady-state or AM noise to determine whether the release from masking in AM noise relative to steady-state noise was significantly different between normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects when the two groups listened under equivalent masker conditions. The normal-hearing subjects were tested in the experimental noise under two conditions: (a) in a spectrally shaped broadband noise that produced pure tone thresholds equivalent to those of the hearing-impaired subjects, and (b) without the spectrally shaped broadband noise. The release from masking in AM noise was significantly greater for the normal-hearing group than for either the hearing-impaired or masked normal-hearing groups. In the second experiment, normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects identified nonsense syllables in isolation and target words in sentences in steady-state or AM noise adjusted to approximate the spectral shape and gain of a hearing aid prescription. The release from masking was significantly less for the subjects with impaired hearing. These data suggest that hearing-impaired listeners obtain less release from masking in AM noise than do normal-hearing listeners even when both the speech and noise are presented at levels that are above threshold over much of the speech frequency range.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7731213     DOI: 10.1044/jshr.3801.222

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Hear Res        ISSN: 0022-4685


  34 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.  Speech reception by listeners with real and simulated hearing impairment: effects of continuous and interrupted noise.

Authors:  Joseph G Desloge; Charlotte M Reed; Louis D Braida; Zachary D Perez; Lorraine A Delhorne
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Cortical encoding of signals in noise: effects of stimulus type and recording paradigm.

Authors:  Curtis J Billings; Keri O Bennett; Michelle R Molis; Marjorie R Leek
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; Geraldine Nogaki
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-04-22

Review 5.  Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids. Part I. Speech understanding in noise, microphone technologies and noise reduction algorithms.

Authors:  King Chung
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2004

6.  Determination of the potential benefit of time-frequency gain manipulation.

Authors:  Michael C Anzalone; Lauren Calandruccio; Karen A Doherty; Laurel H Carney
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Perceptual coherence in listeners having longstanding childhood hearing losses, listeners with adult-onset hearing losses, and listeners with normal hearing.

Authors:  Andrea Pittman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Masking release for words in amplitude-modulated noise as a function of modulation rate and task.

Authors:  Emily Buss; Lisa N Whittle; John H Grose; Joseph W Hall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Role of binaural hearing in speech intelligibility and spatial release from masking using vocoded speech.

Authors:  Soha N Garadat; Ruth Y Litovsky; Gongqiang Yu; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Effects of masker envelope coherence on intensity discrimination.

Authors:  Emily Buss; Joseph W Hall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.