The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds.

Speech recognition was measured in three groups of listeners: those with sensorineural hearing loss of (presumably) cochlear origin (HL), those with normal hearing (NH), and those with normal hearing who listened in the presence of a spectrally shaped noise that elevated their pure-tone thresholds to match those of individual listeners in the HL group (NM). Performance was measured in four backgrounds that differed only in their temporal envelope: steady-state (SS) speech-shaped noise, speech-shaped noise modulated by the envelope of multi-talker babble (MT), speech-shaped noise modulated by the envelope of single-talker speech (ST), and speech-shaped noise modulated by a 10-Hz square wave (SQ). Threshold signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) were typically best in the ST and especially the SQ conditions, indicating a masking release in those modulated backgrounds. SNRs in the SS and MT conditions were essentially identical to one another. The masking release was largest in the listeners in the NH group, and it tended to decrease as hearing loss increased. In 5 of the 11 listeners in the HL group, the masking release was nearly identical to that obtained in the NM group matched to those listeners; in the other 6 listeners, the release was smaller than that in the NM group. The reduced masking release was simulated best in those HL listeners for whom the masking release was relatively large. These results suggest that reduced masking release for speech in listeners with sensorineural hearing loss can only sometimes be accounted for entirely by reduced audibility.

[1]  G. A. Miller The masking of speech. , 1947, Psychological bulletin.

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

[3]  Mark B. Gardner,et al.  Loudness Patterns—A New Approach , 1949 .

[4]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  The Masking of Pure Tones and of Speech by White Noise , 1950 .

[5]  R. Plomp Rate of Decay of Auditory Sensation , 1964 .

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

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

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

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

[10]  W. Jesteadt,et al.  Forward masking as a function of frequency, masker level, and signal delay. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  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.

[12]  D D Dirks,et al.  Articulation index predictions of contextually dependent words. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

[15]  J M Festen,et al.  Difficulties with speech intelligibility in noise in spite of a normal pure-tone audiogram. , 1990, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[16]  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.

[17]  R Plomp,et al.  Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[19]  S. Arlinger,et al.  Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects' ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech, and noise backgrounds. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

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

[21]  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.

[22]  Phillips Dp,et al.  Impaired Word Recognition in Noise by Patients with Noise-Induced Cochlear Hearing-Loss - Contribution of Temporal Resolution Defect , 1994 .

[23]  D P Phillips,et al.  Auditory temporal resolution in multiple sclerosis. , 1994, The Journal of otolaryngology.

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

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

[26]  Speech recognition thresholds in temporally complex backgrounds: Effects of hearing loss and noise masking , 1994 .

[27]  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.

[28]  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.

[29]  D P Phillips,et al.  Word recognition performance in continuous and interrupted broad-band noise by normal-hearing and simulated hearing-impaired listeners. , 1995, The American journal of otology.

[30]  Andrew Stuart,et al.  Word Recognition in Continuous and Interrupted Broadband Noise by Young Normal‐Hearing, Older Normal‐Hearing, and Presbyacusic Listeners , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[31]  The modulated-unmodulated difference: effects of signal frequency and masker modulation depth. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  S P Bacon,et al.  Masking by modulated and unmodulated noise: effects of bandwidth, modulation rate, signal frequency, and masker level. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.