Interactive effects of low-pass filtering and masking noise on word recognition.

A word recognition in noise paradigm was employed to examine temporal resolution in individuals with simulated hearing loss. Word recognition scores were obtained for low-pass filtered speech (i.e., cutoff frequencies of 1000,1250, and 1500 Hz) presented in continuous and interrupted noise at signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of -10, 0, and 10 dB. Performance improved with increasing SNR and low-pass frequency filter settings. Generally, word recognition performance was better in the interrupted noise condition than the continuous noise condition. This effect was greatest in the -10 dB SNR condition. Since the continuous/interrupted performance difference steadily declined as a function of low-pass filter cutoff frequency, these findings suggest that one factor leading to poorer speech recognition in individuals with high-frequency hearing impairment may be their dependence on low-frequency hearing channels that are inherently poorer than high-frequency channels for temporal resolution.

[1]  D. P. Phillips.  Stimulus intensity and loudness recruitment: neural correlates. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  B C Moore,et al.  Detection of temporal gaps in sinusoids by normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  R Carhart,et al.  An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. SAM-TR-66-55. , 1966, [Technical report] SAM-TR. USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.

[4]  D. P. Phillips,et al.  Disturbed speech intelligibility in noise despite a normal audiogram: a defect in temporal resolution? , 1993, The Journal of otolaryngology.

[5]  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.

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

[7]  S Buus,et al.  Temporal gap detection in sensorineural and simulated hearing impairments. , 1984, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[8]  Andrew Stuart,et al.  Unilateral auditory temporal resolution deficit: a case study. , 1999, Journal of communication disorders.

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

[10]  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.

[11]  D P Phillips,et al.  Impaired word recognition in noise by patients with noise-induced cochlear hearing loss: contribution of temporal resolution defect. , 1994, The American journal of otology.

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

[13]  A Salmivalli,et al.  Effect of noise on word discrimination by subjects with impaired hearing, compared with those with normal hearing. , 1990, Scandinavian audiology.

[14]  B. Moore,et al.  Gap detection and the auditory filter: phase effects using sinusoidal stimuli. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  L E Humes,et al.  Modeling sensorineural hearing loss. I. Model and retrospective evaluation. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  A. Needleman,et al.  Speech recognition in noise by hearing-impaired and noise-masked normal-hearing listeners. , 1995, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[17]  Irwin Pollack,et al.  Effects of High Pass and Low Pass Filtering on the Intelligibility of Speech in Noise , 1948 .

[18]  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.

[19]  B. Moore.  An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing , 1977 .

[20]  R H Wilson,et al.  Low- and high-pass filtered Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 for monaural and binaural evaluation. , 1994, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[21]  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.

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

[23]  D P Phillips,et al.  Spike-rate intensity functions of cat cortical neurons studied with combined tone-noise stimuli. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[25]  W. A. Wagenaar.  Note on the construction of digram-balanced Latin squares. , 1969 .

[26]  D. P. Phillips,et al.  Word recognition in continuous noise, interrupted noise, and in quiet by normal-hearing listeners at two sensation levels. , 1997, Scandinavian audiology.

[27]  B C Moore,et al.  Dynamic range and asymmetry of the auditory filter. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  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.

[29]  L D Braida,et al.  Intelligibility of conversational and clear speech in noise and reverberation for listeners with normal and impaired hearing. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  B. Moore.  An introduction to the psychology of hearing, 3rd ed. , 1989 .

[31]  R H Wilson,et al.  Normative data in quiet, broadband noise, and competing message for Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by a female speaker. , 1990, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.