Sentence recognition in noise promoting or suppressing masking release by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.

Normal-hearing (NH) listeners maintain robust speech understanding in modulated noise by "glimpsing" portions of speech from a partially masked waveform--a phenomenon known as masking release (MR). Cochlear implant (CI) users, however, generally lack such resiliency. In previous studies, temporal masking of speech by noise occurred randomly, obscuring to what degree MR is attributable to the temporal overlap of speech and masker. In the present study, masker conditions were constructed to either promote (+MR) or suppress (-MR) masking release by controlling the degree of temporal overlap. Sentence recognition was measured in 14 CI subjects and 22 young-adult NH subjects. Normal-hearing subjects showed large amounts of masking release in the +MR condition and a marked difference between +MR and -MR conditions. In contrast, CI subjects demonstrated less effect of MR overall, and some displayed modulation interference as reflected by poorer performance in modulated maskers. These results suggest that the poor performance of typical CI users in noise might be accounted for by factors that extend beyond peripheral masking, such as reduced segmental boundaries between syllables or words. Encouragingly, the best CI users tested here could take advantage of masker fluctuations to better segregate the speech from the background.

[1]  B. Moore,et al.  Gap detection and masking in hearing-impaired and normal-hearing subjects. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. , 1994, 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]  IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measurements , 1969, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics.

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

[6]  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.

[7]  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.

[8]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[10]  M R Leek,et al.  FO processing and the separation of competing speech signals by listeners with normal hearing and with hearing loss. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[11]  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.

[12]  C W Turner,et al.  Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  John H Grose,et al.  Age Effects in Temporal Envelope Processing: Speech Unmasking and Auditory Steady State Responses , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[14]  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.

[15]  M. Schroeder Reference Signal for Signal Quality Studies , 1968 .

[16]  Kostas Kokkinakis,et al.  A channel-selection criterion for suppressing reverberation in cochlear implants. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[18]  B C Moore,et al.  Comparisons of frequency selectivity in simultaneous and forward masking for subjects with unilateral cochlear impairments. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  A. Boothroyd,et al.  Voice Fundamental Frequency as an Auditory Supplement to the Speechreading of Sentences , 1988, Ear and hearing.

[20]  R. H. Wilson,et al.  Influence of pulsed masking on the threshold for spondees. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  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.

[22]  Bomjun J. Kwon,et al.  AUX: A scripting language for auditory signal processing and software packages for psychoacoustic experiments and education , 2011, Behavior research methods.

[23]  René H Gifford,et al.  An examination of speech recognition in a modulated background and of forward masking in younger and older listeners. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[24]  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.

[25]  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.

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

[27]  Oldooz Hazrati,et al.  Tackling the combined effects of reverberation and masking noise using ideal channel selection. , 2012, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[28]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  B. Shinn-Cunningham Object-based auditory and visual attention , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[31]  Joshua G. W. Bernstein,et al.  Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  B. Kwon,et al.  Spatial and Temporal Effects of Interleaved Masking in Cochlear Implants , 2009, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[33]  G S Donaldson,et al.  Psychophysical recovery from single-pulse forward masking in electric hearing. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  Yi Hu,et al.  Speech recognition by bilateral cochlear implant users in a cocktail-party setting. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.