Some effects of multiple sclerosis on speech perception in noise: Preliminary findings.

The present investigation examined speech perception in noise of adults with and without multiple sclerosis (MS). Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) sentences were presented at a constant level of 65 dBA L(eq) (equivalent continuous noise level [4 dB exchange rate]) from a loudspeaker located at 0-degree horizontal azimuth and 1.2 m from the study participant. Uncorrelated multitalker babble was presented from four loudspeakers positioned at 45-, 135-, 225-, and 315-degree azimuths and 1.7 m from the study participant. The starting presentation level for the babble was 55 dBA L(eq). The level of the babble was increased systematically in 1 dB steps until the subject obtained 0% key words correct on the IEEE sentences. Results revealed a significant difference in speech perception between the two groups at nine signal-to-noise ratios. Some clinical implications of these results are discussed.

[1]  David J Lilly,et al.  Frequency-modulation (FM) technology as a method for improving speech perception in noise for individuals with multiple sclerosis. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[2]  L. Martí-Bonmatí,et al.  Dichotic listening and corpus callosum magnetic resonance imaging in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with emphasis on sex differences. , 2002, Neuropsychology.

[3]  R R Young,et al.  Brainstem auditory evoked responses in 200 patients with multiple sclerosis , 1980, Annals of neurology.

[4]  P E Souza,et al.  Masking of speech in young and elderly listeners with hearing loss. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[5]  N. Squires,et al.  AUDITORY EVOKED POTENTIALS IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS: CORRELATION WITH MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING , 1996, Journal of basic and clinical physiology and pharmacology.

[6]  D. Frisina,et al.  Word recognition in competing babble and the effects of age, temporal processing, and absolute sensitivity. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  B. J. Winer Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[8]  T L Wiley,et al.  Word recognition performance in various background competitors. , 1997, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[9]  D. Silberberg,et al.  New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: Guidelines for research protocols , 1983, Annals of neurology.

[10]  Sperry Jl,et al.  Word Recognition Performance in Various Background Competitors , 1997 .

[11]  T. J. Murray,et al.  Dichotic Paradigms in Multiple Sclerosis , 1983, Ear and hearing.

[12]  D S Emmerich,et al.  Psychophysical measures of central auditory dysfunction in multiple sclerosis: neurophysiological and neuroanatomical correlates. , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[13]  C. W. Hart,et al.  Auditory and vestibular aberrations in multiple sclerosis. , 1972, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[14]  F. Musiek,et al.  Electrophysiologic and behavioral auditory findings in multiple sclerosis. , 1989, The American journal of otology.

[15]  Louis D. Braida,et al.  Evaluating the articulation index for auditory-visual input. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  P. Mustillo,et al.  Auditory deficits in multiple sclerosis: a review. , 1984, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[17]  E Villchur Multichannel compression processing for profound deafness. , 1987, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[18]  J. Jerger,et al.  Relationships among auditory brain stem responses, masking level differences and the acoustic reflex in multiple sclerosis. , 1983, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[19]  V. S. Dayal,et al.  Neuro‐‐‐‐‐‐‐otologic studies in multiple sclerosis. , 1966, The Laryngoscope.