Masking of speech in young and elderly listeners with hearing loss.

This study examined the contributions of various properties of background noise to the speech recognition difficulties experienced by young and elderly listeners with hearing loss. Three groups of subjects participated: young listeners with normal hearing, young listeners with sensorineural hearing loss, and elderly listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Sensitivity thresholds up to 4000 Hz of the young and elderly groups of listeners with hearing loss were closely matched, and a high-pass masking noise was added to minimize the contributions of high-frequency (above 4000 Hz) thresholds, which were not closely matched. Speech recognition scores for monosyllables were obtained in the high-pass noise alone and in three noise backgrounds. The latter consisted of high-pass noise plus one of three maskers: speech-spectrum noise, speech-spectrum noise temporally modulated by the envelope of multi-talker babble, and multi-talker babble. For all conditions, the groups with hearing impairment consistently scored lower than the group with normal hearing. Although there was a trend toward poorer speech-recognition scores as the masker condition more closely resembled the speech babble, the effect of masker condition was not statistically significant. There was no interaction between group and condition, implying that listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss are affected similarly by the type of background noise when the long-term spectrum of the masker is held constant. A significant effect of age was not observed. In addition, masked thresholds for pure tones in the presence of the speech-spectrum masker were not different for the young and elderly listeners with hearing loss.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

[1]  R Plomp,et al.  Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  L. Humes,et al.  Speech-recognition difficulties of the hearing-impaired elderly: the contributions of audibility. , 1990, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[4]  A J Klein,et al.  Upward spread of masking, hearing loss, and speech recognition in young and elderly listeners. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[6]  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.

[7]  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.

[8]  L. Humes Masking of tone bursts by modulated noise in normal, noise-masked normal, and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1990, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[9]  T W Tillman,et al.  Perceptual masking in multiple sound backgrounds. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  H. Schuknecht,et al.  An Experimental and Clinical Study of Deafness from Lesions of the Cochlear Nerve , 1955, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[11]  L E Humes,et al.  Recognition of synthetic speech by hearing-impaired elderly listeners. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[12]  R Plomp,et al.  Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II: Multivariate analyses. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  J C Cooper,et al.  Speech discrimination in noise. , 1971, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[14]  Q Summerfield,et al.  Psychoacoustic and phonetic temporal processing in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  S. Gordon-Salant Age-related differences in speech recognition performance as a function of test format and paradigm. , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[16]  K. Helfer,et al.  Hearing loss, aging, and speech perception in reverberation and noise. , 1990, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[17]  P. Fitzgibbons,et al.  Gap detection in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Speech competition effects on synthetic stop-vowel perception by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  S. Bacon,et al.  Modulation detection in subjects with relatively flat hearing losses. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[20]  N. Kiang,et al.  Tails of tuning curves of auditory-nerve fibers. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  J. L. Danhauer,et al.  Effects of four noise competitors on the California Consonant Test. , 1979, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[22]  R Plomp,et al.  Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. I: Development of test battery. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  L L Elliott,et al.  Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  D Martin,et al.  Limitations of analysis of covariance designs in aging research. , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[25]  L E Humes,et al.  Speech identification difficulties of hearing-impaired elderly persons: the contributions of auditory processing deficits. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[26]  C W Turner,et al.  Spread of masking in normal subjects and in subjects with high-frequency hearing loss. , 1986, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[27]  Speech recognition in a special case of low-frequency hearing loss. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  K S Helfer,et al.  Aging and consonant errors in reverberation and noise. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  L E Humes,et al.  Understanding the speech-understanding problems of the hearing impaired. , 1991, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[30]  R Carhart,et al.  An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. SAM-TR-66-55. , 1966, [Technical report] SAM-TR. USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.

[31]  S. Arlinger,et al.  Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects' ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech, and noise backgrounds. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[32]  A K Nábĕlek,et al.  Identification of vowels in quiet, noise, and reverberation: relationships with age and hearing loss. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[34]  S. Gelfand,et al.  Sentence reception in noise from one versus two sources: effects of aging and hearing loss. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  Bertrand Delgutte,et al.  Representation of speech-like sounds in the discharge patterns of auditory-nerve fibers. , 1979 .

[36]  R. Plomp,et al.  Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. III. Additional data and final discussion , 1992 .