Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

Speech intelligibility for audio-alone and audiovisual (AV) sentences was estimated as a function of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for a female target talker presented in a stationary noise, an interfering male talker, or a speech-modulated noise background, for eight hearing-impaired (HI) and five normal-hearing (NH) listeners. At the 50% keywords-correct performance level, HI listeners showed 7-12 dB less fluctuating-masker benefit (FMB) than NH listeners, consistent with previous results. Both groups showed significantly more FMB under AV than audio-alone conditions. When compared at the same stationary-noise SNR, FMB differences between listener groups and modalities were substantially smaller, suggesting that most of the FMB differences at the 50% performance level may reflect a SNR dependence of the FMB. Still, 1-5 dB of the FMB difference between listener groups remained, indicating a possible role for reduced audibility, limited spectral or temporal resolution, or an inability to use auditory source-segregation cues, in directly limiting the ability to listen in the dips of a fluctuating masker. A modified version of the extended speech-intelligibility index that predicts a larger FMB at less favorable SNRs accounted for most of the FMB differences between listener groups and modalities. Overall, these data suggest that HI listeners retain more of an ability to listen in the dips of a fluctuating masker than previously thought. Instead, the fluctuating-masker difficulties exhibited by HI listeners may derive from the reduced FMB associated with the more favorable SNRs they require to identify a reasonable proportion of the target speech.

[1]  Harvey Fletcher,et al.  The nature of speech and its interpretation , 1922 .

[2]  T W Tillman,et al.  Interaction of competing speech signals with hearing losses. , 1970, Archives of otolaryngology.

[3]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[4]  T Houtgast,et al.  A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  B E Walden,et al.  Some effects of training on speech recognition by hearing-impaired adults. , 1981, Journal of speech and hearing research.

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

[7]  C Ludvigsen Relations among some psychoacoustic parameters in normal and cochlearly impaired listeners. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  B C Moore,et al.  Auditory filter shapes in subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairments. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  B. Moore,et al.  Psychoacoustic abilities of subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear hearing impairments and their relationship to the ability to understand speech. , 1989, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.

[10]  A M Simpson,et al.  Spectral enhancement to improve the intelligibility of speech in noise for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1990, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[11]  Articulation index: Importance function in the intensity domain , 1990 .

[12]  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.

[13]  L. Braida Crossmodal Integration in the Identification of Consonant Segments , 1991, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[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.

[15]  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.

[16]  W M Rabinowitz,et al.  Relations among different measures of speech reception in subjects using a cochlear implant. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Ken W. Grant,et al.  Evaluating the articulation index for auditory–visual consonant recognition , 1993 .

[18]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception. II. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  B C Moore,et al.  Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of interfering speech. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  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.

[22]  B C Moore,et al.  The identification of vowel-like harmonic complexes: effects of component phase, level, and fundamental frequency. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  J. Driver Enhancement of selective listening by illusory mislocation of speech sounds due to lip-reading , 1996, Nature.

[24]  Thomas Baer,et al.  Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing‐impaired and normally hearing people , 1997 .

[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]  Van Summers,et al.  Masking of tones and speech by Schroeder-phase harmonic complexes in normally hearing and hearing-impaired listeners , 1998, Hearing Research.

[27]  R L Freyman,et al.  The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  R. W. Hukin,et al.  Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody, and talker characteristics in selective attention. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  P F Seitz,et al.  The use of visible speech cues for improving auditory detection of spoken sentences. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  L. Bernstein,et al.  Speech perception without hearing , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  K. Grant,et al.  The effect of speechreading on masked detection thresholds for filtered speech. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  R L Freyman,et al.  Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  D A Nelson,et al.  A new procedure for measuring peripheral compression in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  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.

[35]  D S Brungart,et al.  Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  Gerald A Studebaker,et al.  Intensity-importance functions for bandlimited monosyllabic words. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  G. Kidd,et al.  The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  Wouter A Dreschler,et al.  The relationship between the intelligibility of time-compressed speech and speech in noise in young and elderly listeners. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  Jayne B Ahlstrom,et al.  Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  Michael K. Qin,et al.  Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  Emily Buss,et al.  Temporal Fine-Structure Cues to Speech and Pure Tone Modulation in Observers with Sensorineural Hearing Loss , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[42]  Michelle R. Molis,et al.  Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: effects of hearing loss and presentation level. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[43]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  R. Freyman,et al.  The role of visual speech cues in reducing energetic and informational masking. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[45]  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.

[46]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  The relationship between frequency selectivity and pitch discrimination: sensorineural hearing loss. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[47]  T. Houtgast,et al.  Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[48]  Brian C. J. Moore,et al.  Frequency discrimination of complex tones by hearing-impaired subjects: Evidence for loss of ability to use temporal fine structure , 2006, Hearing Research.

[49]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Speech perception in gated noise: the effects of temporal resolution. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[50]  Douglas Brungart,et al.  Informational masking of speech in children: auditory-visual integration. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[51]  Christian Lorenzi,et al.  Speech masking release in listeners with flat hearing loss: Effects of masker fluctuation rate on identification scores and phonetic feature reception , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[52]  N. J. Versfeld,et al.  Extended speech intelligibility index for the prediction of the speech reception threshold in fluctuating noise. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[53]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[54]  R. McArdle,et al.  Intra- and inter-session test, retest reliability of the Words-in-Noise (WIN) test. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[55]  Richard H Wilson,et al.  The Words-in-Noise (WIN) test with multitalker babble and speech-spectrum noise maskers. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[56]  L. Bernstein,et al.  Enhanced visual speech perception in individuals with early-onset hearing impairment. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[57]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Effects of moderate cochlear hearing loss on the ability to benefit from temporal fine structure information in speech. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[58]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Spatial release from masking with noise-vocoded speech. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[59]  Wouter A Dreschler,et al.  Prediction of the Intelligibility for Speech in Real-Life Background Noises for Subjects With Normal Hearing , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[60]  Andrew Stuart,et al.  Reception thresholds for sentences in quiet, continuous noise, and interrupted noise in school-age children. , 2008, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[61]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Masking release for low- and high-pass-filtered speech in the presence of noise and single-talker interference. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.