Literature DB >> 9714924

Modulation rate detection and discrimination by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

K W Grant1, V Summers, M R Leek.   

Abstract

Modulation detection and modulation rate discrimination thresholds were obtained at three different modulation rates (fm = 80, 160, and 320 Hz) and for three different ranges of modulation depths (m): full (100%), mid (70%-80%), and low (40%-60%) with both normal-hearing (NH) and hearing-impaired (HI) subjects. The results showed that modulation detection thresholds increased with modulation rate, but significantly more so for HI than for NH subjects. Similarly, rate discrimination thresholds (delta r) increased with increases in fm and decreases in modulation depth. When compared to NH subjects, rate discrimination thresholds for HI subjects were significantly worse for all rates and for all depths. At the fastest modulation rate with less than 100% modulation depth, most HI subjects could not discriminate any change in rate. When valid thresholds for rate discrimination were obtained for HI subjects, they ranged from 2.5 semitones (delta r = 12.7 Hz, fm = 80 Hz, m = 100%) to 8.7 semitones (delta r = 214.5 Hz, fm = 320 Hz, m = 100%). In contrast, average rate discrimination thresholds for NH subjects ranged from 0.9 semitones (delta r = 4.2 Hz, fm = 80 Hz, m = 100%) to 4.7 semitones (delta r = 103.5 Hz, fm = 320 Hz, m = 60%). Some of the differences in temporal processing between NH and HI subjects, especially those related to modulation detection, may be accounted for by differences in signal audibility, especially for high-frequency portions of the modulated noise. However, in many cases, HI subjects encountered great difficulty discriminating a change in modulation rate even though the modulation components of the standard and test stimuli were detectable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9714924     DOI: 10.1121/1.423323

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


  19 in total

1.  A method to remove differences in frequency response between commercial hearing aids to allow direct comparison of the sound quality of hearing-aid features.

Authors:  Rolph Houben; Inge Brons; Wouter A Dreschler
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2011-11-07

2.  Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech.

Authors:  Pamela Souza; Stuart Rosen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Discrimination of time-reversed harmonic complexes by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  Amanda M Lauer; Michelle Molis; Marjorie R Leek
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-08-25

4.  Perceptual learning and generalization resulting from training on an auditory amplitude-modulation detection task.

Authors:  Matthew B Fitzgerald; Beverly A Wright
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Cues for Diotic and Dichotic Detection of a 500-Hz Tone in Noise Vary with Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Junwen Mao; Kelly-Jo Koch; Karen A Doherty; Laurel H Carney
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-05-15

6.  Cochlear hearing loss and the detection of sinusoidal versus random amplitude modulation.

Authors:  John H Grose; Heather L Porter; Emily Buss; Joseph W Hall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Developmental hearing loss impedes auditory task learning and performance in gerbils.

Authors:  Gardiner von Trapp; Ishita Aloni; Stephen Young; Malcolm N Semple; Dan H Sanes
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Asymmetric temporal envelope encoding: Implications for within- and across-ear envelope comparison.

Authors:  Sean R Anderson; Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 9.  Review article: review of the literature on temporal resolution in listeners with cochlear hearing impairment: a critical assessment of the role of suprathreshold deficits.

Authors:  Charlotte M Reed; Louis D Braida; Patrick M Zurek
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-12-11

10.  Gap detection and temporal modulation transfer function as behavioral estimates of auditory temporal acuity using band-limited stimuli in young and older adults.

Authors:  Yi Shen
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.