Speech Masking in Normal and Impaired Hearing: Interactions Between Frequency Selectivity and Inherent Temporal Fluctuations in Noise

Recent studies in normal-hearing listeners have used envelope-vocoded stimuli to show that the masking of speech by noise is dominated by the temporal-envelope fluctuations inherent in noise, rather than just overall power. Because these studies were based on vocoding, it was expected that cochlear-implant (CI) users would demonstrate a similar sensitivity to inherent fluctuations. In contrast, it was found that CI users showed no difference in speech intelligibility between maskers with and without inherent envelope fluctuations. Here, these initial findings in CI users were extended to listeners with cochlear hearing loss and the results were compared with those from normal-hearing listeners at either equal sensation level or equal sound pressure level. The results from hearing-impaired listeners (and in normal-hearing listeners at high sound levels) are consistent with a relative reduction in low-frequency inherent noise fluctuations due to broader cochlear filtering. The reduced effect of inherent temporal fluctuations in noise, due to either current spread (in CI users) or broader cochlear filters (in hearing-impaired listeners), provides a new way to explain the loss of masking release experienced in CI users and hearing-impaired listeners when additional amplitude fluctuations are introduced in noise maskers.

[1]  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.

[2]  T. Houtgast,et al.  The concept of signal-to-noise ratio in the modulation domain and speech intelligibility. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  The combined effects of reverberation and nonstationary noise on sentence intelligibility. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Torsten Dau,et al.  A multi-resolution envelope-power based model for speech intelligibility. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  R L Freyman,et al.  Broadened forward-masked tuning curves from intense masking tones: delay-time and probe-level manipulations. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Torsten Dau,et al.  Predicting speech intelligibility based on the signal-to-noise envelope power ratio after modulation-frequency selective processing. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Notionally steady background noise acts primarily as a modulation masker of speech. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[9]  M F Dorman,et al.  The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Michael F Dorman,et al.  Development and Validation of the AzBio Sentence Lists , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[11]  Larry E Humes,et al.  Changes in hearing-aid benefit following 1 or 2 years of hearing-aid use by older adults. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[12]  Andrew J. Oxenham,et al.  Speech Perception in Tones and Noise via Cochlear Implants Reveals Influence of Spectral Resolution on Temporal Processing , 2014, Trends in hearing.

[13]  Norman C. Beaulieu,et al.  Accurate simple closed-form approximations to Rayleigh sum distributions and densities , 2005, IEEE Communications Letters.

[14]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  The importance for speech intelligibility of random fluctuations in "steady" background noise. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Behavioral measures of cochlear compression and temporal resolution as predictors of speech masking release in hearing-impaired listeners. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  K. D. Kryter Methods for the Calculation and Use of the Articulation Index , 1962 .

[19]  B. Moore,et al.  Frequency selectivity as a function of level and frequency measured with uniformly exciting notched noise. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: Effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  B. Moore,et al.  On the near non-existence of "pure" energetic masking release for speech. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  K. D. Kryter,et al.  Auditory Fatigue from Audio Analgesia , 1962 .

[23]  F. Zeng Trends in Cochlear Implants , 2004, Trends in amplification.