Spectral-Temporal Trade-Off in Vocoded Sentence Recognition: Effects of Age, Hearing Thresholds, and Working Memory

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Objectives: Cochlear implant (CI) signal processing degrades the spectral components of speech. This requires CI users to rely primarily on temporal cues, specifically, amplitude modulations within the temporal envelope, to recognize speech. Auditory temporal processing ability for envelope modulations worsens with advancing age, which may put older CI users at a disadvantage compared with younger users. To evaluate how potential age-related limitations for processing temporal envelope modulations impact spectrally degraded sentence recognition, noise-vocoded sentences were presented to younger and older normal-hearing listeners in quiet. Envelope modulation rates were varied from 10 to 500 Hz by adjusting the low-pass filter cutoff frequency (LPF). The goal of this study was to evaluate if age impacts recognition of noise-vocoded speech and if this age-related limitation existed for a specific range of envelope modulation rates. Design: Noise-vocoded sentence recognition in quiet was measured as a function of number of spectral channels (4, 6, 8, and 12 channels) and LPF (10, 20, 50, 75, 150, 375, and 500 Hz) in 15 younger normal-hearing listeners and 15 older near-normal-hearing listeners. Hearing thresholds and working memory were assessed to determine the extent to which these factors were related to recognition of noise-vocoded sentences. Results: Younger listeners achieved significantly higher sentence recognition scores than older listeners overall. Performance improved in both groups as the number of spectral channels and LPF increased. As the number of spectral channels increased, the differences in sentence recognition scores between groups decreased. A spectral-temporal trade-off was observed in both groups in which performance in the 8- and 12-channel conditions plateaued with lower-frequency amplitude modulations compared with the 4- and 6-channel conditions. There was no interaction between age group and LPF, suggesting that both groups obtained similar improvements in performance with increasing LPF. The lack of an interaction between age and LPF may be due to the nature of the task of recognizing sentences in quiet. Audiometric thresholds were the only significant predictor of vocoded sentence recognition. Although performance on the working memory task declined with advancing age, working memory scores did not predict sentence recognition. Conclusions: Younger listeners outperformed older listeners for recognizing noise-vocoded sentences in quiet. The negative impact of age was reduced when ample spectral information was available. Age-related limitations for recognizing vocoded sentences were not affected by the temporal envelope modulation rate of the signal, but instead, appear to be related to a generalized task limitation or to reduced audibility of the signal.

[1]  M. Yassuda,et al.  A subtest analysis of the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA): which subtests can best discriminate between healthy controls, mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease? , 2015, International Psychogeriatrics.

[2]  V. Narne,et al.  The Effect of Short-Term Auditory Training on Speech in Noise Perception and Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Adults with Cochlear Implants , 2016, Seminars in Hearing.

[3]  A. Baddeley Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. , 2012, Annual review of psychology.

[4]  S Arlinger,et al.  Verbal information-processing capabilities and cochlear implants: implications for preoperative predictors of speech understanding. , 1996, Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.

[5]  J. Cummings,et al.  The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A Brief Screening Tool For Mild Cognitive Impairment , 2005, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[6]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Noise Susceptibility of Cochlear Implant Users: The Role of Spectral Resolution and Smearing , 2005, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[7]  David R Friedland,et al.  Case-control analysis of cochlear implant performance in elderly patients. , 2010, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[8]  Michael S. Harris,et al.  Verbal working memory and inhibition‐concentration in adults with cochlear implants , 2017, Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology.

[9]  Philipos C Loizou,et al.  Speech processing in vocoder-centric cochlear implants. , 2006, Advances in oto-rhino-laryngology.

[10]  Li Xu,et al.  Spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition in noise. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Sandra Gordon-Salant,et al.  Recognition of spectrally degraded phonemes by younger, middle-aged, and older normal-hearing listeners. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  M. Daneman,et al.  How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Douglas P Sladen,et al.  Older and younger adult cochlear implant users: speech recognition in quiet and noise, quality of life, and music perception. , 2015, American journal of audiology.

[14]  G. Lautenschlager,et al.  Mediators of long-term memory performance across the life span. , 1996, Psychology and aging.

[15]  Jae Hee Lee,et al.  Auditory measures of selective and divided attention in young and older adults using single-talker competition. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Spoken Language Comprehension in Older Adults: Interactions between Sensory and Cognitive Change in Normal Aging , 2001 .

[17]  René H. Gifford,et al.  Speech Recognition Materials and Ceiling Effects: Considerations for Cochlear Implant Programs , 2008, Audiology and Neurotology.

[18]  Eric W Healy,et al.  Band importance for sentences and words reexamined. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  B. Schneider,et al.  Effect of age, presentation method, and learning on identification of noise-vocoded words. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  J. Thomas Cochlear implantation of the elderly. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[22]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Auditory temporal processing in elderly listeners. , 1996, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[23]  A. Beynon,et al.  Factors Affecting Auditory Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: An Update with 2251 Patients , 2012, Audiology and Neurotology.

[24]  S. Rosen Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[25]  T. Lunner,et al.  The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances , 2013, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[26]  Gender Identification in Younger and Older Adults: Use of Spectral and Temporal Cues in Noise-Vocoded Speech , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[27]  D. Frisina,et al.  Relationships among age-related differences in gap detection and word recognition. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  John H Grose,et al.  Age Effects in Temporal Envelope Processing: Speech Unmasking and Auditory Steady State Responses , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[29]  J. Dubno,et al.  Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  Maureen J. Shader,et al.  Age-Related Differences in the Processing of Temporal Envelope and Spectral Cues in a Speech Segment , 2017, Ear and hearing.

[31]  A. Bacciu,et al.  Speech recognition in elderly cochlear implant recipients. , 2003, Clinical otolaryngology and allied sciences.

[32]  F. Zeng,et al.  Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Age effects on duration discrimination with simple and complex stimuli. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  J. Galvin,et al.  Contribution of Auditory Working Memory to Speech Understanding in Mandarin-Speaking Cochlear Implant Users , 2014, PloS one.

[35]  J. Galvin,et al.  Perceptual Learning and Auditory Training in Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2007, Trends in amplification.

[36]  N. Viemeister Temporal modulation transfer functions based upon modulation thresholds. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  H. Levitt,et al.  Optimizing Performance in Adult Cochlear Implant Users through Clinician Directed Auditory Training , 2015, Seminars in Hearing.

[38]  A. Lalwani,et al.  Cochlear Implant Outcomes in the Elderly , 2004, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[39]  H. Francis,et al.  Cochlear Implantation in Older Adults , 2012, Medicine.

[40]  Karen M Mispagel,et al.  Factors Affecting Open-Set Word Recognition in Adults With Cochlear Implants , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[41]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[42]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Speed of processing in normal aging: effects of speech rate, linguistic structure, and processing time. , 1985, Journal of gerontology.

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

[44]  Jayne B Ahlstrom,et al.  Age-related differences in the temporal modulation transfer function with pure-tone carriers. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[45]  John K Niparko,et al.  Predictive models for cochlear implantation in elderly candidates. , 2005, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[46]  B.S. Wilson,et al.  Interfacing Sensors With the Nervous System: Lessons From the Development and Success of the Cochlear Implant , 2008, IEEE Sensors Journal.

[47]  C. Fowler,et al.  Amplitude-modulated auditory steady-state responses in younger and older listeners. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[48]  J. Galvin,et al.  The Role of Spectral and Temporal Cues in Voice Gender Discrimination by Normal-Hearing Listeners and Cochlear Implant Users , 2004, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[49]  N. Fox,et al.  NIH Toolbox for Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function , 2013, Neurology.

[50]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Age effects on measures of auditory duration discrimination. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[51]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[52]  Terence W Picton,et al.  Human temporal auditory acuity as assessed by envelope following responses. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[53]  K. Pichora-Fuller,et al.  Associations between speech understanding and auditory and visual tests of verbal working memory: effects of linguistic complexity, task, age, and hearing loss , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[54]  Matthew J Goupell,et al.  Spectral and temporal resolutions of information-bearing acoustic changes for understanding vocoded sentences. , 2015, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[55]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

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

[57]  M. Liberman,et al.  Acceleration of Age-Related Hearing Loss by Early Noise Exposure: Evidence of a Misspent Youth , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.