Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners.

Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) for sentences were determined in stationary and modulated background noise for two age-matched groups of normal-hearing (N = 13) and hearing-impaired listeners (N = 21). Correlations were studied between the SRT in noise and measures of auditory and nonauditory performance, after which stepwise regression analyses were performed within both groups separately. Auditory measures included the pure-tone audiogram and tests of spectral and temporal acuity. Nonauditory factors were assessed by measuring the text reception threshold (TRT), a visual analogue of the SRT, in which partially masked sentences were adaptively presented. Results indicate that, for the normal-hearing group, the variance in speech reception is mainly associated with nonauditory factors, both in stationary and in modulated noise. For the hearing-impaired group, speech reception in stationary noise is mainly related to the audiogram, even when audibility effects are accounted for. In modulated noise, both auditory (temporal acuity) and nonauditory factors (TRT) contribute to explaining interindividual differences in speech reception. Age was not a significant factor in the results. It is concluded that, under some conditions, nonauditory factors are relevant for the perception of speech in noise. Further evaluation of nonauditory factors might enable adapting the expectations from auditory rehabilitation in clinical settings.

[1]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Selected cognitive factors and speech recognition performance among young and elderly listeners. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[2]  A Boothroyd,et al.  Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  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.

[4]  René H Gifford,et al.  Psychophysical estimates of nonlinear cochlear processing in younger and older listeners. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Jayne B Ahlstrom,et al.  Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  S. Gordon-Salant Age-related differences in speech recognition performance as a function of test format and paradigm. , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[7]  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.

[8]  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.

[9]  B C Moore,et al.  Inter-relationship between different psychoacoustic measures assumed to be related to the cochlear active mechanism. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[11]  Larry E Humes,et al.  Factors underlying the speech-recognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  J M Festen,et al.  Limited resolution of spectral contrast and hearing loss for speech in noise. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  Using the Speech Transmission Index for predicting non-native speech intelligibility. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  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.

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

[16]  A. Nabelek,et al.  Monaural and binaural speech perception in reverberation for listeners of various ages. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Brian C. J. Moore,et al.  Effects of envelope fluctuations on gap detection , 1992, Hearing Research.

[18]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception. II. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  T. Houtgast,et al.  Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  On the generality of the perceptual closure effect. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  B. Moore,et al.  Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in noise , 1993 .

[22]  R. Patterson,et al.  The deterioration of hearing with age: frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  R Plomp,et al.  Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II: Multivariate analyses. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  T. Houtgast,et al.  Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[26]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[27]  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.

[28]  B C Moore,et al.  Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of interfering speech. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[30]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Effects of stimulus and noise rate variability on speech perception by younger and older adults. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  J R Dubno,et al.  Comparison of frequency selectivity and consonant recognition among hearing-impaired and masked normal-hearing listeners. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[33]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[34]  R Plomp,et al.  Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. I: Development of test battery. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  I M Noordhoek,et al.  Relations between intelligibility of narrow-band speech and auditory functions, both in the 1-kHz frequency region. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  Sid P. Bacon,et al.  Cochlear Compression: Perceptual Measures and Implications for Normal and Impaired Hearing , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[37]  L. Humes Do ‘Auditory Processing’ Tests Measure Auditory Processing in the Elderly? , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[38]  L L Elliott,et al.  Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  A. Boothroyd,et al.  Effects of spectral smearing on phoneme and word recognition. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  P. Divenyi,et al.  Decline of speech understanding and auditory thresholds in the elderly. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  R. Plomp Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids , 1977 .

[42]  R. M. Warren Perceptual Restoration of Missing Speech Sounds , 1970, Science.

[43]  L. Humes,et al.  Erratum: Auditory filter shapes in normal‐hearing, noise‐masked normal, and elderly listeners [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93, 2903–2914 (1993)] , 1993 .

[44]  S. Stephens,et al.  The Input for a Damaged Cochlea-A Brief Review , 1976 .

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

[46]  J M Festen,et al.  The relationships between self-reported hearing disability and measures of auditory disability. , 1996, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[47]  A. Boothroyd,et al.  Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[48]  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.

[49]  Michelle R. Molis,et al.  Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: effects of hearing loss and presentation level. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[50]  M. Daneman,et al.  How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[51]  C. Watson,et al.  Auditory and visual speech perception: confirmation of a modality-independent source of individual differences in speech recognition. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[52]  Robert C. Bilger,et al.  Standardization of a Test of Speech Perception in Noise , 1984 .

[53]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of reverberation and noise on the intelligibility of sentences in cases of presbyacusis. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[54]  R. Plomp,et al.  Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. III. Additional data and final discussion , 1992 .

[55]  K. S. Rhebergen,et al.  A Speech Intelligibility Index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[56]  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.

[57]  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.

[58]  J. Grose,et al.  Gap Duration Discrimination in Listeners with Cochlear Hearing Loss: Effects of Gap and Marker Duration, Frequency Separation, and Mode of Presentation , 2001, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[59]  L E Humes,et al.  Auditory filter shapes in normal-hearing, noise-masked normal, and elderly listeners. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[60]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Temporal gap resolution in listeners with high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[61]  K. Grant,et al.  Auditory-visual speech recognition by hearing-impaired subjects: consonant recognition, sentence recognition, and auditory-visual integration. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[62]  T Houtgast,et al.  Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[63]  K. Snell,et al.  Age-related changes in temporal gap detection. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[64]  G. Studebaker,et al.  Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[65]  A R Horwitz,et al.  Use of context by young and aged adults with normal hearing. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[66]  Ken W. Grant,et al.  The recognition of isolated words and words in sentences: Individual variability in the use of sentence context , 1997 .

[67]  Estimating cochlear‐filter shapes, temporal‐window width and compression from tone‐sweep detection in spectral and temporal noise gaps , 2005 .

[68]  L. L. Elliott,et al.  Verbal auditory closure and the speech perception in noise (SPIN) Test. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[69]  P. Fitzgibbons,et al.  Temporal gap detection in noise as a function of frequency, bandwidth, and level. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.