Prediction of speech recognition from audibility in older listeners with hearing loss: effects of age, amplification, and background noise.

The extent to which audibility determines speech recognition depends on a number of signal and listener factors. This study focused on three factors: age, background noise modulation, and linear versus wide-dynamic compression amplification. Three audiometrically matched groups of older listeners with hearing loss were tested to determine at what age performance declined relative to that expected on the basis of audibility. Recognition fell below predicted scores by greater amounts as age increased. Scores were higher for steady versus amplitude-modulated noise. Scores for WDRC-amplified speech were slightly lower than for linearly amplified speech across all groups and noise conditions. We found no interaction between age and type of noise. The small reduction in scores for amplitude-modulated compared to steady noise and lack of age interaction suggests that the substantial deficit seen with age in multitalker babble for previous studies was due to some effect not elicited here, such as informational masking.

[1]  D Byrne,et al.  Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  B C Moore,et al.  Effects of fast-acting high-frequency compression on the intelligibility of speech in steady and fluctuating background sounds. , 1997, British journal of audiology.

[3]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Prediction and statistical evaluation of speech recognition test scores. , 1999, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[4]  L Magnusson,et al.  Predicted and Measured Speech Recognition Performance in Noise with Linear Amplification , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[5]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Accuracy of speech intelligibility index predictions for noise-masked young listeners with normal hearing and for elderly listeners with hearing impairment. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[6]  J. C. Steinberg,et al.  Factors Governing the Intelligibility of Speech Sounds , 1945 .

[7]  W. Kannel,et al.  Hearing in the elderly: the Framingham cohort, 1983-1985. Part I. Basic audiometric test results. , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[8]  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.

[9]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  NAL-NL1: A new procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids , 1999 .

[10]  Lorienne M Jenstad,et al.  Measuring the acoustic effects of compression amplification on speech in noise. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  C. Roup,et al.  Tympanometric Screening Norms for Adults. , 1998, American journal of audiology.

[12]  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.

[13]  W A Dreschler,et al.  Speech intelligibility in noise with fast compression hearing aids. , 1998, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

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

[15]  M. Kathleen Pichora-Fuller,et al.  Effects of aging on auditory processing of speech , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[16]  Sid P. Bacon,et al.  Cochlear Compression: Perceptual Measures and Implications for Normal and Impaired Hearing , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[17]  R. Higdon,et al.  Word recognition and the articulation index in older listeners with probable age-related auditory neuropathy. , 2003, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[18]  Richard Schulz,et al.  Investigating Moderator Hypotheses in Aging Research: Statistical, Methodological, and Conceptual Difficulties with Comparing Separate Regressions , 2003, International journal of aging & human development.

[19]  B. Moore,et al.  Benefits of linear amplification and multichannel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Larry E Humes,et al.  Factors underlying the speech-recognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Harvey Fletcher,et al.  Errata: The Perception of Speech and Its Relation to Telephony [J. Acous. Soc. Am. 22, 89 (1950)] , 1950 .

[22]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST) , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[23]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Speech Intelligibility Prediction in Hearing-Impaired Listeners for Steady and Fluctuating Noise , 2019, Modeling Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

[24]  P. Verhaeghen,et al.  Aging and verbal memory span: a meta-analysis. , 2005, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[25]  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.

[26]  Larry E Humes,et al.  Measures of working memory, sequence learning, and speech recognition in the elderly. , 2005, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[27]  C W Turner,et al.  Quantifying the contribution of audibility to recognition of compression-amplified speech. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[28]  D D Dirks,et al.  Articulation index predictions of contextually dependent words. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  D. Markle,et al.  Hearing Aids , 1936, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[30]  G Keidser Computerized measurement of speech intelligibility. I. Development of system and procedures. , 1991, Scandinavian audiology.

[31]  Ron Dumont,et al.  Wechsler Memory Scale–Third Edition , 2008 .

[32]  S. Folstein,et al.  "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. , 1975, Journal of psychiatric research.

[33]  L Magnusson,et al.  Predicting the speech recognition performance of elderly individuals with sensorineural hearing impairment. A procedure based on the Speech Intelligibility Index. , 1996, Scandinavian audiology.

[35]  Walt Jesteadt Modeling sensorineural hearing loss , 1997 .

[36]  R M Cox,et al.  Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. , 1988, Ear and hearing.

[37]  C W Turner,et al.  Multichannel compression, temporal cues, and audibility. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[38]  Lorienne M Jenstad,et al.  Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility. , 2005, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[39]  Gerald A Studebaker,et al.  Audibility-Index Predictions of Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners’ Performance on the Connected Speech Test , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[40]  D D Dirks,et al.  Stop-consonant recognition for normal-hearing listeners and listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. II: Articulation index predictions. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  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.

[42]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  Prediction of Speech Recognition From Audibility and Psychoacoustic Abilities of Hearing-Impaired Listeners , 2019, Modeling Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

[43]  P E Souza,et al.  Masking of speech in young and elderly listeners with hearing loss. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[44]  P G Stelmachowicz,et al.  The perception of amplified speech by listeners with hearing loss: acoustic correlates. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[45]  H. Dillon,et al.  The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) New Procedure for Selecting the Gain and Frequency Response of a Hearing Aid , 1986, Ear and hearing.

[46]  P E Souza,et al.  Improving audibility with nonlinear amplification for listeners with high-frequency loss. , 2000, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[47]  D. Schum,et al.  Actual and predicted word-recognition performance of elderly hearing-impaired listeners. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[48]  K. S. Rhebergen,et al.  A Speech Intelligibility Index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[49]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[50]  R C Seewald,et al.  Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits: aided speech perception measures. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[51]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Age-related changes in monosyllabic word recognition performance when audibility is held constant. , 1997, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[52]  Gerald A. Studebaker,et al.  Audibility-Index Functions for the Connected Speech Test , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[53]  C. Turner,et al.  High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[54]  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.

[55]  J Jerger,et al.  Hearing aid use, central auditory disorder, and hearing handicap in elderly persons. , 1996, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.