Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.

Many competing noises in real environments are modulated or fluctuating in level. Listeners with normal hearing are able to take advantage of temporal gaps in fluctuating maskers. Listeners with sensorineural hearing loss show less benefit from modulated maskers. Cochlear implant users may be more adversely affected by modulated maskers because of their limited spectral resolution and by their reliance on envelope-based signal-processing strategies of implant processors. The current study evaluated cochlear implant users' ability to understand sentences in the presence of modulated speech-shaped noise. Normal-hearing listeners served as a comparison group. Listeners repeated IEEE sentences in quiet, steady noise, and modulated noise maskers. Maskers were presented at varying signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) at six modulation rates varying from 1 to 32 Hz. Results suggested that normal-hearing listeners obtain significant release from masking from modulated maskers, especially at 8-Hz masker modulation frequency. In contrast, cochlear implant users experience very little release from masking from modulated maskers. The data suggest, in fact, that they may show negative effects of modulated maskers at syllabic modulation rates (2-4 Hz). Similar patterns of results were obtained from implant listeners using three different devices with different speech-processor strategies. The lack of release from masking occurs in implant listeners independent of their device characteristics, and may be attributable to the nature of implant processing strategies and/or the lack of spectral detail in processed stimuli.

[1]  S. Bacon,et al.  The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[2]  W Jesteadt,et al.  Effect of relative amplitude, presentation level, and vowel duration on perception of voiceless stop consonants by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  A Boothroyd,et al.  Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Q J Fu,et al.  Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  G S Donaldson,et al.  Psychophysical recovery from single-pulse forward masking in electric hearing. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

[8]  H. Gustafsson,et al.  Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  A E Carney,et al.  Effect of relative amplitude and formant transitions on perception of place of articulation by adult listeners with cochlear implants. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[10]  Jayne B Ahlstrom,et al.  Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  D D Dirks,et al.  Speech recognition in amplitude-modulated noise of listeners with normal and listeners with impaired hearing. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[12]  B J Kwon,et al.  Consonant identification under maskers with sinusoidal modulation: masking release or modulation interference? , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measurements , 1969, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics.

[14]  S P Bacon,et al.  Modulation detection, modulation masking, and speech understanding in noise in the elderly. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.