The role of spectral resolution, working memory, and audibility in explaining variance in susceptibility to temporal envelope distortion.

BACKGROUND Several studies have shown that hearing thresholds alone cannot adequately predict listeners' success with hearing-aid amplification. Furthermore, previous studies have shown marked differences in listeners' susceptibility to distortions introduced by certain nonlinear amplification parameters. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to examine the role of spectral resolution, working memory, and audibility in explaining perceptual susceptibility to temporal envelope and other hearing-aid compression-induced distortions for listeners with mild to moderate and moderate to severe hearing loss. RESEARCH DESIGN A between-subjects repeated-measures design was used to compare speech recognition scores with linear versus compression amplification, for listeners with mild to moderate and moderate to severe hearing loss. STUDY SAMPLE The study included 15 adult listeners with mild to moderate hearing loss and 13 adults with moderate to severe hearing loss. DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS Speech recognition scores were measured for vowel-consonant-vowel syllables processed with linear, moderate compression, and extreme compression amplification. Perceptual susceptibility to compression-induced temporal envelope distortion was defined as the difference in scores between linear and compression amplification. Both overall scores and consonant feature scores (i.e., place, manner, and voicing) were analyzed. Narrowband spectral resolution was measured using individual measures of auditory filter bandwidth at 2000 Hz. Working memory was measured using the reading span test. Signal audibility was quantified using the Aided Audibility Index. Multiple linear regression was used to determine the predictive role of spectral resolution, working memory, and audibility benefit on listeners' susceptibility to compression-induced distortions. RESULTS For all listeners, spectral resolution, working memory, and audibility benefit were significant predictors of overall distortion scores. For listeners with moderate to severe hearing loss, spectral resolution and audibility benefit predicted distortion scores for consonant place and manner of articulation features, and audibility benefit predicted distortion scores for consonant voicing features. For listeners with mild to moderate hearing loss, the model did not predict distortion scores for overall or consonant feature scores. CONCLUSIONS The results from this study suggest that when audibility is adequately controlled, measures of spectral resolution may identify the listeners who are most susceptible to compression-induced distortions. Working memory appears to modulate the negative effect of these distortions for listeners with moderate to severe hearing loss.

[1]  S. Arlinger,et al.  Visual evoked potentials: relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[2]  Graham Naylor,et al.  Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings – 1. Patterns of benefit , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[3]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

[4]  Karen A Doherty,et al.  Age-Related Changes in Listening Effort for Various Types of Masker Noises , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[5]  B C Moore,et al.  Simplified measurement of auditory filter shapes using the notched-noise method. , 1992, British journal of audiology.

[6]  Graham Naylor,et al.  Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[7]  P. Wong,et al.  Aging and cortical mechanisms of speech perception in noise , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[8]  David Fabry,et al.  Speech and music quality ratings for linear and nonlinear hearing aid circuitry. , 2007, Journal of american academy of audiology.

[9]  D. Poeppel,et al.  The cortical organization of speech processing , 2007, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[10]  P. Stelmachowicz,et al.  Perception of voiceless fricatives by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children and adults. , 2000, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

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

[12]  A. Kam,et al.  Comparison of performance with wide dynamic range compression and linear amplification. , 1999, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[13]  Christopher A Brown,et al.  Effects of Audibility and Multichannel Wide Dynamic Range Compression on Consonant Recognition for Listeners with Severe Hearing Loss , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Belinda A Henry,et al.  Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  M R Leek,et al.  Reduced frequency selectivity and the preservation of spectral contrast in noise. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[17]  G. Studebaker,et al.  Supplementary formulas and tables for calculating and interconverting speech recognition scores in transformed arcsine units , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[18]  S. Rosen Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[19]  Discrimination of release time constants in hearing-aid compressors , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[20]  B E Walden,et al.  Description and validation of an LDL procedure designed to select SSPL90. , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[21]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Recognition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument compression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and processing capacity. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

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

[23]  Walter Schaeken,et al.  A Dutch, computerized, and group administrable adaptation of the operation span test , 2002 .

[24]  Michael F. Bunting,et al.  Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[25]  C C Crandell,et al.  Individual Differences in Speech Recognition Ability: Implications for Hearing Aid Selection , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[26]  R. Engle,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and comprehension: a test of four hypotheses. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  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.

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

[29]  Jyh-Horng Chen,et al.  Aging Effects on the Activation of the Auditory Cortex during Binaural Speech Listening in White Noise: An fMRI Study , 2007, Audiology and Neurotology.

[30]  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.

[31]  R. Patterson,et al.  The deterioration of hearing with age: frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  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.

[33]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

[34]  D A Preves,et al.  A New Technique for Quantifying Temporal Envelope Contrasts , 1994, Ear and hearing.

[35]  Pamela E Souza,et al.  Effects of Compression on Speech Acoustics, Intelligibility, and Sound Quality , 2002, Trends in amplification.

[36]  G. A. Miller,et al.  An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants , 1955 .

[37]  Pamela Souza,et al.  Application of the envelope difference index to spectrally sparse speech. , 2012, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[38]  L E Humes,et al.  Factors associated with individual differences in clinical measures of speech recognition among the elderly. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[39]  S Rosen,et al.  Auditory filter nonlinearity at 2 kHz in normal hearing listeners. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  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.

[41]  T. Lunner,et al.  Phonological mismatch and explicit cognitive processing in a sample of 102 hearing-aid users , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[42]  T. Lunner,et al.  Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU) , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[43]  Stephanie Bor,et al.  Consequences of broad auditory filters for identification of multichannel-compressed vowels. , 2012, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[44]  D D Dirks,et al.  Auditory filter characteristics and consonant recognition for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[45]  M. Akeroyd Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[46]  Cognitive Task Demands Modulate the Sensitivity of the Human Cochlea , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[47]  J Jerger,et al.  Clinical experience with impedance audiometry. , 1970, Archives of otolaryngology.

[48]  Richard J. Baker,et al.  Characterising auditory filter nonlinearity , 1994, Hearing Research.

[49]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Why does working memory span predict complex cognition? Testing the strategy affordance hypothesis , 2008, Memory & cognition.

[50]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  The Choice of Compression Speed in Hearing Aids: Theoretical and Practical Considerations and the Role of Individual Differences , 2008, Trends in amplification.

[51]  Katrin Krumbholz,et al.  What is the role of the medial olivocochlear system in speech-in-noise processing? , 2012, Journal of neurophysiology.

[52]  T. Lunner,et al.  Cognition and aided speech recognition in noise: specific role for cognitive factors following nine-week experience with adjusted compression settings in hearing aids. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[53]  Stephanie Bor,et al.  Multichannel compression: effects of reduced spectral contrast on vowel identification. , 2008, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[54]  Lorienne M Jenstad,et al.  Temporal envelope changes of compression and speech rate: combined effects on recognition for older adults. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[55]  James M Kates,et al.  Understanding compression: Modeling the effects of dynamic-range compression in hearing aids , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[56]  Robert V. Shannon The relative importance of amplitude, temporal, and spectral cues for cochlear implant processor design. , 2002 .

[57]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use , 2003, International journal of audiology.