Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise.

The masking of speech by amplitude-modulated and unmodulated speech-spectrum noise has been evaluated by the measurement of monaural speech recognition in such noise on young and elderly subjects with normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired subjects with and without a hearing aid. Sinusoidal modulation with frequencies covering the range 2-100 Hz, as well as an irregular modulation generated by the sum of four sinusoids in random phase relation, was used. Modulation degrees were 100%, +/- 6 dB, and +/- 12 dB. Root mean-square sound pressure level was equal for modulated and unmodulated maskers. For the normal-hearing subjects, essentially all types of modulated noise provided some release of speech masking as compared to unmodulated noise. Sinusoidal modulation provided more release of masking than the irregular modulation. The release of masking increased with modulation depth. It is proposed that the number and duration of low-level intervals are essential factors for the degree of masking. The release of masking was found to reach a maximum at a modulation frequency between 10 and 20 Hz for sinusoidal modulation. For elderly hearing-impaired subjects, the release of masking obtained from amplitude modulation was consistently smaller than in the normal-hearing groups, presumably related to changes in auditory temporal resolution caused by the hearing loss. The average speech-to-noise ratio required for 30% correct speech recognition varied greatly between the groups: For young normal-hearing subjects it was -15 dB, for elderly normal-hearing it was -9 dB, for elderly hearing-impaired subjects in the unaided listening condition it was +2 dB and in the aided condition it was +3 dB. The results support the conclusion that within the methodological context of the study, age as well as sensorineural hearing loss, as such, influence speech recognition in noise more than what can be explained by the loss of audibility, according to the audiogram and the masking noise spectrum.

[1]  N. Viemeister,et al.  Temporal modulation transfer functions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1985, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[2]  A. House,et al.  A masking noise with speech-envelope characteristics for studying intelligibility. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  C. Formby,et al.  Differential sensitivity to tonal frequency and to the rate of amplitude modulation of broadband noise by normally hearing listeners. , 1985 .

[4]  T W Tillman,et al.  Release of masking for speech through interaural time delay. , 1967, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  D. Dirks,et al.  Effect of pulsed masking on selected speech materials. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[7]  B. Moore,et al.  Psychoacoustic abilities of subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear hearing impairments and their relationship to the ability to understand speech. , 1989, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.

[8]  J. Dubno,et al.  Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  C. J. Hardiman,et al.  Central auditory processing in normal-hearing elderly adults. , 1990, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

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

[11]  N. Viemeister.  Temporal modulation transfer functions based upon modulation thresholds. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  A R Moller.  Unit responses in the rat cochlear nucleus to tones of rapidly varying frequency and amplitude. , 1971, Acta physiologica Scandinavica.

[13]  J W Hall,et al.  Comodulation masking release for speech stimuli. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  S. Gelfand,et al.  Sentence reception in noise from one versus two sources: effects of aging and hearing loss. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  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.

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

[17]  R Plomp,et al.  Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. , 1990, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[18]  W O Olsen,et al.  Hearing aid efficiency in a competing speech situation. , 1970, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[19]  G. Keidser,et al.  Speech recognition in young and elderly normal-hearing listeners in a closed response test. , 1991, Scandinavian audiology.

[20]  P C Doyle,et al.  Effects of Noise on NST and NU 6 Stimuli , 1985, Ear and hearing.

[21]  T W Tillman,et al.  Perceptual masking in multiple sound backgrounds. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  P. Fitzgibbons,et al.  Gap detection in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  T W Tillman,et al.  Binaural maskin of speech by periodically modulated noise. , 1966, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  J. Goodman,et al.  Perceptual masking of spondees by combinations of talkers , 1975 .

[25]  J. L. Danhauer,et al.  Effects of four noise competitors on the California Consonant Test. , 1979, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[26]  B Hagerman,et al.  Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. , 1982, Scandinavian audiology.

[27]  C Ludvigsen.  Relations among some psychoacoustic parameters in normal and cochlearly impaired listeners. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.