Literature DB >> 8120263

Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise.

H A Gustafsson1, S D Arlinger.   

Abstract

The masking of speech by amplitude-modulated and unmodulated speech-spectrum noise has been evaluated by the measurement of monaural speech recognition in such noise on young and elderly subjects with normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired subjects with and without a hearing aid. Sinusoidal modulation with frequencies covering the range 2-100 Hz, as well as an irregular modulation generated by the sum of four sinusoids in random phase relation, was used. Modulation degrees were 100%, +/- 6 dB, and +/- 12 dB. Root mean-square sound pressure level was equal for modulated and unmodulated maskers. For the normal-hearing subjects, essentially all types of modulated noise provided some release of speech masking as compared to unmodulated noise. Sinusoidal modulation provided more release of masking than the irregular modulation. The release of masking increased with modulation depth. It is proposed that the number and duration of low-level intervals are essential factors for the degree of masking. The release of masking was found to reach a maximum at a modulation frequency between 10 and 20 Hz for sinusoidal modulation. For elderly hearing-impaired subjects, the release of masking obtained from amplitude modulation was consistently smaller than in the normal-hearing groups, presumably related to changes in auditory temporal resolution caused by the hearing loss. The average speech-to-noise ratio required for 30% correct speech recognition varied greatly between the groups: For young normal-hearing subjects it was -15 dB, for elderly normal-hearing it was -9 dB, for elderly hearing-impaired subjects in the unaided listening condition it was +2 dB and in the aided condition it was +3 dB. The results support the conclusion that within the methodological context of the study, age as well as sensorineural hearing loss, as such, influence speech recognition in noise more than what can be explained by the loss of audibility, according to the audiogram and the masking noise spectrum.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8120263     DOI: 10.1121/1.408346

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


  44 in total

1.  Hearing aid satisfaction: what does research from the past 20 years say?

Authors:  Lena L N Wong; Louise Hickson; Bradley McPherson
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2003

2.  Perception of interrupted speech: effects of dual-rate gating on the intelligibility of words and sentences.

Authors:  Valeriy Shafiro; Stanley Sheft; Robert Risley
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Relative contribution of off- and on-frequency spectral components of background noise to the masking of unprocessed and vocoded speech.

Authors:  Frédéric Apoux; Eric W Healy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  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

5.  Psychometric functions for sentence recognition in sinusoidally amplitude-modulated noises.

Authors:  Yi Shen; Nicole K Manzano; Virginia M Richards
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  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

7.  Masking Differentially Affects Envelope-following Responses in Young and Aged Animals.

Authors:  Jesyin Lai; Edward L Bartlett
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 3.590

Review 8.  The choice of compression speed in hearing AIDS: theoretical and practical considerations and the role of individual differences.

Authors:  Brian C J Moore
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-06

9.  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

10.  Dip listening or modulation masking? Call recognition by green treefrogs (Hyla cinerea) in temporally fluctuating noise.

Authors:  Alejandro Vélez; Gerlinde Höbel; Noah M Gordon; Mark A Bee
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2012-10-16       Impact factor: 1.836

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.