Auditory models of suprathreshold distortion and speech intelligibility in persons with impaired hearing.

BACKGROUND Hearing-impaired (HI) individuals with similar ages and audiograms often demonstrate substantial differences in speech-reception performance in noise. Traditional models of speech intelligibility focus primarily on average performance for a given audiogram, failing to account for differences between listeners with similar audiograms. Improved prediction accuracy might be achieved by simulating differences in the distortion that speech may undergo when processed through an impaired ear. Although some attempts to model particular suprathreshold distortions can explain general speech-reception deficits not accounted for by audibility limitations, little has been done to model suprathreshold distortion and predict speech-reception performance for individual HI listeners. Auditory-processing models incorporating individualized measures of auditory distortion, along with audiometric thresholds, could provide a more complete understanding of speech-reception deficits by HI individuals. A computational model capable of predicting individual differences in speech-recognition performance would be a valuable tool in the development and evaluation of hearing-aid signal-processing algorithms for enhancing speech intelligibility. PURPOSE This study investigated whether biologically inspired models simulating peripheral auditory processing for individual HI listeners produce more accurate predictions of speech-recognition performance than audiogram-based models. RESEARCH DESIGN Psychophysical data on spectral and temporal acuity were incorporated into individualized auditory-processing models consisting of three stages: a peripheral stage, customized to reflect individual audiograms and spectral and temporal acuity; a cortical stage, which extracts spectral and temporal modulations relevant to speech; and an evaluation stage, which predicts speech-recognition performance by comparing the modulation content of clean and noisy speech. To investigate the impact of different aspects of peripheral processing on speech predictions, individualized details (absolute thresholds, frequency selectivity, spectrotemporal modulation [STM] sensitivity, compression) were incorporated progressively, culminating in a model simulating level-dependent spectral resolution and dynamic-range compression. STUDY SAMPLE Psychophysical and speech-reception data from 11 HI and six normal-hearing listeners were used to develop the models. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Eleven individualized HI models were constructed and validated against psychophysical measures of threshold, frequency resolution, compression, and STM sensitivity. Speech-intelligibility predictions were compared with measured performance in stationary speech-shaped noise at signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of -6, -3, 0, and 3 dB. Prediction accuracy for the individualized HI models was compared to the traditional audibility-based Speech Intelligibility Index (SII). RESULTS Models incorporating individualized measures of STM sensitivity yielded significantly more accurate within-SNR predictions than the SII. Additional individualized characteristics (frequency selectivity, compression) improved the predictions only marginally. A nonlinear model including individualized level-dependent cochlear-filter bandwidths, dynamic-range compression, and STM sensitivity predicted performance more accurately than the SII but was no more accurate than a simpler linear model. Predictions of speech-recognition performance simultaneously across SNRs and individuals were also significantly better for some of the auditory-processing models than for the SII. CONCLUSIONS A computational model simulating individualized suprathreshold auditory-processing abilities produced more accurate speech-intelligibility predictions than the audibility-based SII. Most of this advantage was realized by a linear model incorporating audiometric and STM-sensitivity information. Although more consistent with known physiological aspects of auditory processing, modeling level-dependent changes in frequency selectivity and gain did not result in more accurate predictions of speech-reception performance.

[1]  J M Festen,et al.  Relations between auditory functions in impaired hearing. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  M R Leek,et al.  Modulation rate detection and discrimination by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Jayne B Ahlstrom,et al.  Age-related differences in the temporal modulation transfer function with pure-tone carriers. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  B. Moore,et al.  Suggested formulae for calculating auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation patterns. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Mary T Cord,et al.  Intelligibility of speech in noise at high presentation levels: effects of hearing loss and frequency region. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[8]  Mounya Elhilali,et al.  An Objective Measure for Selecting Microphone Modes in OMNI/DIR Hearing Aid Circuits , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[9]  G. Keppel,et al.  Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook , 1976 .

[10]  M. Liberman,et al.  Adding Insult to Injury: Cochlear Nerve Degeneration after “Temporary” Noise-Induced Hearing Loss , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Moderate cochlear hearing loss leads to a reduced ability to use temporal fine structure information. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  W O Olsen,et al.  Phoneme and Word Recognition for Words in Isolation and in Sentences , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[13]  Frederick J Gallun,et al.  Spectrotemporal modulation sensitivity as a predictor of speech intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners. , 2013, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[14]  T R Letowski,et al.  Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[15]  D. A. Nelson,et al.  Critical bandwidth for phase discrimination in hearing-impaired listeners. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Mounya Elhilali,et al.  A spectro-temporal modulation index (STMI) for assessment of speech intelligibility , 2003, Speech Commun..

[17]  L. Humes Speech understanding in the elderly. , 1996, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[18]  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.

[19]  Richard F. Lyon,et al.  An analog electronic cochlea , 1988, IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process..

[20]  Ken W Grant,et al.  Understanding excessive SNR loss in hearing-impaired listeners. , 2013, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[21]  R. Salvi,et al.  GAD levels and muscimol binding in rat inferior colliculus following acoustic trauma , 2000, Hearing Research.

[22]  Van Summers,et al.  Suprathreshold auditory processing and speech perception in noise: hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners. , 2013, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[23]  Powen Ru,et al.  Multiresolution spectrotemporal analysis of complex sounds. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  J W Horst Frequency discrimination of complex signals, frequency selectivity, and speech perception in hearing-impaired subjects. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Torsten Dau,et al.  Prediction of speech intelligibility based on an auditory preprocessing model , 2010, Speech Commun..

[26]  Martin D Vestergaard Dead regions in the cochlea: implications for speech recognition and applicability of articulation index theory: Regiones cocleares muertas: implicaciones en el reconocimiento del lenguaje y su aplicabilidad en la teoría del índice de articulación , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[27]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  Misha Pavel,et al.  On the relative importance of various components of the modulation spectrum for automatic speech recognition , 1999, Speech Commun..

[29]  Jian Wang,et al.  Functional reorganization in chinchilla inferior colliculus associated with chronic and acute cochlear damage , 2002, Hearing Research.

[30]  J. H. Steiger Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. , 1980 .

[31]  Larry E. Humes,et al.  Studies of Hearing-Aid Outcome Measures in Older Adults: A Comparison of Technologies and an Examination of Individual Differences , 2009 .

[32]  D. H. Johnson,et al.  The relationship between spike rate and synchrony in responses of auditory-nerve fibers to single tones. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  B C Moore,et al.  Temporal modulation transfer functions obtained using sinusoidal carriers with normally hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  R. Patterson,et al.  Complex Sounds and Auditory Images , 1992 .

[35]  Stuart Rosen,et al.  Auditory filter nonlinearity across frequency using simultaneous notched-noise masking. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  E. F. Evans,et al.  Some aspects of temporal coding by single cochlear fibres from regions of cochlear hair cell degeneration in the guinea pig , 2004, Archives of oto-rhino-laryngology.

[37]  G F Smoorenburg,et al.  Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  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.

[39]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  The relationship between frequency selectivity and pitch discrimination: sensorineural hearing loss. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  I. Bruce,et al.  Predictions of Speech Intelligibility with a Model of the Normal and Impaired Auditory-periphery , 2007, 2007 3rd International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering.

[41]  B C Moore,et al.  Detection of frequency modulation at low modulation rates: evidence for a mechanism based on phase locking. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.