Effects of age and hearing loss on the recognition of interrupted words in isolation and in sentences.

The ability to recognize spoken words interrupted by silence was investigated with young normal-hearing listeners and older listeners with and without hearing impairment. Target words from the revised SPIN test by Bilger et al. [J. Speech Hear. Res. 27(1), 32-48 (1984)] were presented in isolation and in the original sentence context using a range of interruption patterns in which portions of speech were replaced with silence. The number of auditory "glimpses" of speech and the glimpse proportion (total duration glimpsed/word duration) were varied using a subset of the SPIN target words that ranged in duration from 300 to 600 ms. The words were presented in isolation, in the context of low-predictability (LP) sentences, and in high-predictability (HP) sentences. The glimpse proportion was found to have a strong influence on word recognition, with relatively little influence of the number of glimpses, glimpse duration, or glimpse rate. Although older listeners tended to recognize fewer interrupted words, there was considerable overlap in recognition scores across listener groups in all conditions, and all groups were affected by interruption parameters and context in much the same way.

[1]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Note on informational masking. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  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.

[3]  M. R. Jones,et al.  Dynamic attending and responses to time. , 1989, Psychological review.

[4]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  P F Seitz,et al.  The recognition of isolated words and words in sentences: individual variability in the use of sentence context. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  M. Akeroyd Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[7]  Brian C. J. Moore,et al.  Temporal integration and context effects in hearing , 2003, J. Phonetics.

[8]  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.

[9]  Yoshitaka Nakajima,et al.  Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound Albert S. Bregman , 1992 .

[10]  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.

[11]  M. Cooke,et al.  Recognizing speech under a processing load: Dissociating energetic from informational factors , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[12]  Peter F. Assmann,et al.  The Perception of Speech Under Adverse Conditions , 2004 .

[13]  Jae Hee Lee,et al.  Contribution of consonant versus vowel information to sentence intelligibility for young normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired listeners. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Lynn Hasher,et al.  Working Memory, Comprehension, and Aging: A Review and a New View , 1988 .

[15]  Lynn Hasher,et al.  Age-related differences in cognition: the role of distraction control. , 2008, Neuropsychology.

[16]  L. Humes,et al.  Factors influencing recognition of interrupted speech. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  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.

[18]  S. Folstein,et al.  "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. , 1975, Journal of psychiatric research.

[19]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Hearing Loss and Perceptual Effort: Downstream Effects on Older Adults’ Memory for Speech , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[20]  W. M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. , 1979, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[21]  G. L. Powers,et al.  Intelligibility of temporally interrupted speech with and without intervening noise. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  Kaileen D. Herring,et al.  Word-recognition performance in interrupted noise by young listeners with normal hearing and older listeners with hearing loss. , 2010, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[23]  T. Busey,et al.  Auditory speech recognition and visual text recognition in younger and older adults: similarities and differences between modalities and the effects of presentation rate. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[24]  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.

[25]  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.

[26]  Philipos C Loizou,et al.  Factors influencing glimpsing of speech in noise. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  T. Salthouse,et al.  Information Processing Speed and Aging , 2005 .

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

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

[30]  Hideki Kawahara,et al.  Restructuring speech representations using a pitch-adaptive time-frequency smoothing and an instantaneous-frequency-based F0 extraction: Possible role of a repetitive structure in sounds , 1999, Speech Commun..

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

[32]  Charles S. Watson,et al.  Some comments on informational masking , 2005 .

[33]  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.

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

[35]  Daniel Fogerty,et al.  Perceptual contributions of the consonant-vowel boundary to sentence intelligibility. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[37]  Su-Hyun Jin,et al.  Interrupted speech perception: the effects of hearing sensitivity and frequency resolution. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  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.

[39]  Harvey Fletcher,et al.  The nature of speech and its interpretation , 1922 .

[40]  Larry E. Humes,et al.  Factors Affecting Speech Understanding in Older Adults , 2010 .

[41]  Roy D Patterson,et al.  The mutual roles of temporal glimpsing and vocal characteristics in cocktail-party listening. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  K. S. Rhebergen,et al.  Extended speech intelligibility index for the prediction of the speech reception threshold in fluctuating noise. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Note on informational masking (L) , 2003 .

[44]  C S Watson,et al.  Individual differences in the processing of speech and nonspeech sounds by normal-hearing listeners. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[45]  Martin Cooke,et al.  A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  Irwin Pollack,et al.  Masking of Speech by Noise at High Sound Levels , 1958 .

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

[48]  Brian Gygi,et al.  Individual differences in auditory abilities. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[49]  Jae Hee Lee,et al.  Intelligibility of interrupted sentences at subsegmental levels in young normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired listeners. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[50]  Rhodri Cusack,et al.  Auditory Perceptual Organization Inside and Outside the Laboratory , 2004 .

[51]  A. W. F. Huggins,et al.  Temporally segmented speech , 1972 .

[52]  Martin Cooke,et al.  Glimpsing speech , 2003, J. Phonetics.

[53]  Signy Sheldon,et al.  Priming and sentence context support listening to noise-vocoded speech by younger and older adults. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[54]  G. Kidd,et al.  Similarity, uncertainty, and masking in the identification of nonspeech auditory patterns. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[55]  R A Lutfi A model of auditory pattern analysis based on component-relative-entropy. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[56]  Jon Barker,et al.  The foreign language cocktail party problem: Energetic and informational masking effects in non-native speech perception. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[57]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  Effects of periodic masker interruption on the intelligibility of interrupted speech. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.