Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing.

To assess age-related differences in benefit from masker modulation, younger and older adults with normal hearing but not identical audiograms listened to nonsense syllables in each of two maskers: (1) a steady-state noise shaped to match the long-term spectrum of the speech, and (2) this same noise modulated by a 10-Hz square wave, resulting in an interrupted noise. An additional low-level broadband noise was always present which was shaped to produce equivalent masked thresholds for all subjects. This minimized differences in speech audibility due to differences in quiet thresholds among subjects. An additional goal was to determine if age-related differences in benefit from modulation could be explained by differences in thresholds measured in simultaneous and forward maskers. Accordingly, thresholds for 350-ms pure tones were measured in quiet and in each masker; thresholds for 20-ms signals in forward and simultaneous masking were also measured at selected signal frequencies. To determine if benefit from modulated maskers varied with masker spectrum and to provide a comparison with previous studies, a subgroup of younger subjects also listened in steady-state and interrupted noise that was not spectrally shaped. Articulation index (AI) values were computed and speech-recognition scores were predicted for steady-state and interrupted noise; predicted benefit from modulation was also determined. Masked thresholds of older subjects were slightly higher than those of younger subjects; larger age-related threshold differences were observed for short-duration than for long-duration signals. In steady-state noise, speech recognition for older subjects was poorer than for younger subjects, which was partially attributable to older subjects' slightly higher thresholds in these maskers. In interrupted noise, although predicted benefit was larger for older than younger subjects, scores improved more for younger than for older subjects, particularly at the higher noise level. This may be related to age-related increases in thresholds in steady-state noise and in forward masking, especially at higher frequencies. Benefit of interrupted maskers was larger for unshaped than for speech-shaped noise, consistent with AI predictions.

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

[2]  W. Jesteadt,et al.  Forward masking as a function of frequency, masker level, and signal delay. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  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.

[4]  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.

[5]  J R Dubno,et al.  Frequency selectivity and consonant recognition for hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners with equivalent masked thresholds. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[7]  J R Dubno,et al.  Comparison of frequency selectivity and consonant recognition among hearing-impaired and masked normal-hearing listeners. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[9]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The Intelligibility of Interrupted Speech , 1948 .

[10]  D. M. Green,et al.  A maximum-likelihood method for estimating thresholds in a yes-no task. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  R L Freyman,et al.  Temporal resolution in sensorineural hearing-impaired listeners. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  M R Leek,et al.  Experience with a yes-no single-interval maximum-likelihood procedure. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Andrew Stuart,et al.  Word Recognition in Continuous and Interrupted Broadband Noise by Young Normal‐Hearing, Older Normal‐Hearing, and Presbyacusic Listeners , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[14]  J M Festen Contributions of comodulation masking release and temporal resolution to the speech-reception threshold masked by an interfering voice. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  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.

[16]  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.