Speech perception in gated noise: the effects of temporal resolution.

Previous investigations have suggested that hearing-impaired (HI) listeners have reduced masking release (MR) compared to normal hearing listeners (NH) when they listen in modulated noise. The current study examined the following questions that have not been clearly answered: First, when HI listeners are amplified so that their performance is equal to that of NH listeners in quiet and in steady noise, do HI listeners still show reduced MR with modulated noise when compared to NH listeners? Second, is the masking release the same for sentences and CV syllables? Third, does forward masking significantly contribute to the variability in performance among HI listeners? To compensate for reduced hearing sensitivity for HI listeners, the spectrum levels of both speech and noise were adjusted based on the individual hearing loss. There was no significant difference between the performance of NH listeners and that of HI listeners in steady noise and in quiet. However, the amount of MR for sentences and for CV syllables was significantly reduced for HI listeners. For sentence recognition, the amount of MR seemed to be more related to hearing sensitivity for low-to-mid frequencies than to forward masking. In contrast, forward masking thresholds appear to be a major contributor to the amount of MR for syllable recognition.

[1]  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.

[2]  P M Zurek,et al.  Consonant reception in noise by listeners with mild and moderate sensorineural hearing impairment. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  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.

[4]  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.

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

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

[7]  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.

[8]  Dianne J. Van Tasell,et al.  Hearing Loss, Speech, and Hearing Aids , 1993 .

[9]  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.

[10]  L. Feth,et al.  Temporal integration of forward masking in listeners having sensorineural hearing loss. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  C L Mackersie,et al.  The role of sequential stream segregation and frequency selectivity in the perception of simultaneous sentences by listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. , 2001, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[12]  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.

[13]  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.

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

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

[16]  J. C. Steinberg,et al.  Factors Governing the Intelligibility of Speech Sounds , 1945 .

[17]  B. Moore,et al.  Growth of forward masking for sinusoidal and noise maskers as a function of signal delay; implications for suppression in noise. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[19]  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.

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

[21]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  THE PERCEPTION OF SPEECH IN FLUCTUATING NOISE , 1993 .