Estimates of Basilar-Membrane Nonlinearity Effects on Masking of Tones and Speech

Objective: The aim of this experiment was to assess the contribution of cochlear nonlinearities to speech recognition in noise for individuals with normal hearing and a range of quiet thresholds. For signals close to the characteristic frequency (CF) of a place on the basilar membrane, the normal growth of response of the basilar membrane is linear at lower signal levels and compressed at medium to higher signal levels. In contrast, at moderate to high CFs, the basilar membrane responds more linearly to stimuli at frequencies well below the CF regardless of input level. Thus, for moderate-level speech and a lower frequency masker, the response to the masker grows linearly whereas the response to the speech is compressed, which may result in changes in the effectiveness of the masker on speech recognition with increases in masker level. To test this hypothesis, observed speech-recognition scores were compared with scores predicted using an audibility-based model, which did not include nonlinear effects that may influence masker effectiveness. Design: Growth of simultaneous masking was measured for moderate-level bandpass-filtered nonsense syllables and for 350-msec pure tones at frequencies within the speech passband. Masker frequencies were within (on-frequency) or below (off-frequency) the speech passband. Estimates of basilar-membrane nonlinearities were derived from growth-of-masking functions for 10-msec, 2.0- and 4.0-kHz tones in narrowband, off-frequency maskers presented simultaneously. Subjects were 26 adults with normal hearing with approximately a 20-dB range of average quiet thresholds. Results: Breakpoints (i.e., the levels corresponding to the transitions from linear to nonlinear responses) were strongly associated with quiet thresholds but slopes measured above the breakpoints were independent of quiet thresholds. Individual differences were substantially larger for off-frequency masking of pure tones and speech than for on-frequency masking of pure tones and speech. Using an audibility-based predictive model, the change in speech audibility resulting from the compressed response to speech with increasing off-frequency masker level (and the resulting decline in scores) was well predicted from nonlinear growth of masking for pure tones measured in the same off-frequency masker. However, absolute speech-recognition predictions were generally inaccurate and were a function of how well pure-tone signal levels at masked threshold estimated masker effectiveness for speech. That is, subjects with lower off-frequency masked thresholds had less accurate predictions of speech recognition in off-frequency maskers. Conclusions: Large individual differences in off-frequency masking of pure tones and speech are consistent with the assumption that small changes in the shape of the basilar-membrane input-output function result in large changes in the amount of off-frequency masking but small (if any) changes in on-frequency masking where the signal and masker are subject to a similar compression. Growth of off-frequency masking of pure tones and speech were correlated with each other, consistent with the underlying basilar-membrane response, and consistent with changes in breakpoints for subjects with normal hearing and a range of quiet thresholds. These results provide support for a role of nonlinear effects in the understanding of speech in noise.

[1]  K. D. Kryter PROPOSED METHODS FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE ARTICULATION INDEX , 1961 .

[2]  Andrew J. Oxenham,et al.  Estimates of Human Cochlear Tuning at Low Levels Using Forward and Simultaneous Masking , 2003, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[3]  M. L. Hicks,et al.  Effects of aspirin on psychophysical measures of frequency selectivity, two-tone suppression, and growth of masking. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  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.

[5]  G. K. Yates,et al.  Basilar membrane nonlinearity and its influence on auditory nerve rate-intensity functions , 1990, Hearing Research.

[6]  S. Bertoli,et al.  The Role of Transient‐Evoked Otoacoustic Emission Testing in the Evaluation of Elderly Persons , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[7]  D A Nelson,et al.  Linearized response growth inferred from growth-of-masking slopes in ears with cochlear hearing loss. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[9]  S P Bacon,et al.  Growth of simultaneous masking for fm < fs: effects of overall frequency and level. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  A. Oxenham,et al.  Basilar-membrane nonlinearity and the growth of forward masking. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  B C Moore,et al.  Additivity of masking in normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  L. Robles,et al.  Basilar membrane mechanics at the base of the chinchilla cochlea. II. Responses to low-frequency tones and relationship to microphonics and spike initiation in the VIII nerve. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  A. Oxenham,et al.  Suppression and the upward spread of masking. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  M. Ruggero,et al.  Furosemide alters organ of corti mechanics: evidence for feedback of outer hair cells upon the basilar membrane , 1991, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[15]  G. Studebaker,et al.  Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  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.

[17]  L. Robles,et al.  Basilar membrane mechanics at the base of the chinchilla cochlea. I. Input-output functions, tuning curves, and response phases. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Michael G. Heinz,et al.  Auditory-Nerve Rate Responses are Inconsistent with Common Hypotheses for the Neural Correlates of Loudness Recruitment , 2005, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[19]  W. S. Rhode Observations of the vibration of the basilar membrane in squirrel monkeys using the Mössbauer technique. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[21]  J M Pickett,et al.  Sensorineural hearing loss and upward spread of masking. , 1970, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[22]  Vit Drga,et al.  Inferred basilar-membrane response functions for listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  A. Oxenham,et al.  A behavioral measure of basilar-membrane nonlinearity in listeners with normal and impaired hearing. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  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.

[25]  Brian C. J. Moore,et al.  Modeling the Effects of Peripheral Nonlinearity in Listeners With Normal and Impaired Hearing , 2019, Modeling Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

[26]  Ray Meddis,et al.  Cochlear compression in listeners with moderate sensorineural hearing loss , 2005, Hearing Research.

[27]  Mario A. Ruggero,et al.  The effects of acoustic trauma, other cochlear injury and death on basilar-membrane responses to sound , 1996 .

[28]  Michael G. Heinz,et al.  Normal and impaired level encoding: Effects of noise-induced hearing loss on auditory-nerve responses , 2005 .

[29]  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.

[30]  Ifat Yasin,et al.  The effects of a high-frequency suppressor on tuning curves and derived basilar-membrane response functions. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  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.

[32]  Mario A. Ruggero,et al.  Alteration of basilar membrane responses to sound by acoustic overstimulation , 1993 .

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

[34]  Peter J Blamey,et al.  A digital processing strategy to optimize hearing aid outputs directly. , 2004, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[35]  Laurel H Carney,et al.  Correction of the peripheral spatiotemporal response pattern: a potential new signal-processing strategy. , 2006, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[36]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  Auditory filter nonlinearity in mild/moderate hearing impairment. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  B. Moore,et al.  Frequency selectivity as a function of level and frequency measured with uniformly exciting notched noise. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  L. Robles,et al.  Basilar-membrane responses to tones at the base of the chinchilla cochlea. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  P G Stelmachowicz,et al.  Growth of masking as a measure of response growth in hearing-impaired listeners. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Comparing different estimates of cochlear compression in listeners with normal and impaired hearing. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  B C Moore,et al.  Inter-relationship between different psychoacoustic measures assumed to be related to the cochlear active mechanism. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.