Use of Low-Pass Noise in Word-Recognition Testing

1976 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald L. Cohen ◽  
Robert W. Keith
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Sound Pressure ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Low Pass ◽  
Cochlear Hearing Loss ◽  
High Sound

This study attempted to determine whether word-recognition scores obtained in noise were more sensitive to the presence of a hearing loss than recognition scores obtained in quiet. Subjects with normal hearing, high-frequency cochlear hearing loss, and flat cochlear hearing loss were tested in quiet and in the presence of a 500-Hz low-pass noise. Two signal-to-noise conditions were employed, −4 dB and −12 dB. Words were presented at 40 dB SL in one experiment and at 96 dB SPL for normal-hearing subjects in a second experiment. The results indicated that, while the word-recognition scores of groups were similar in quiet, the more negative the signal-to-noise ratio, the greater the separation of group scores, with hearing-impaired subjects having poorer recognition scores than normal-hearing subjects. When the speech and noise were presented at high SPLs, however, the normal-hearing subjects had poorer word recognition than those with flat cochlear losses. The results are interpreted as indicating greater spread of masking in normal-hearing than hearing-impaired subjects at high sound pressure levels.

Word Recognition Functions for the CID W-22 Test in Multitalker Noise for Normally Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Subjects

1989 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall C. Beattie
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Conventional Tests ◽  
Recognition Function ◽  
Recognition Testing ◽  
Insight Into

Word recognition functions for Auditee recordings of the CID W-22 stimuli in multitalker noise were obtained using subjects with normal hearing and with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss. In the first experiment, word recognition functions were generated by varying the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N); whereas in the second experiment, a constant S/N was used and stimulus intensity was varied. The split-half reliability of word recognition scores for the normal-hearing and hearing-impaired groups revealed variability that agreed closely with predictions based on the simple binomial distribution. Therefore, the binomial model appears appropriate for estimating the variability of word recognition scores whether they are obtained in quiet or in a competing background noise. The reliability for threshold (50% point) revealed good stability. The slope of the recognition function was steeper for normal listeners than for the hearing-impaired subjects. Word recognition testing in noise can provide insight into the problems imposed by hearing loss, particularly when evaluating patients with mild hearing loss who exhibit no difficulties with conventional tests. Clinicians should employ a sufficient number of stimuli so that the test is adequately sensitive to differences among listening conditions.

Auditory Frequency Selectivity in Normal and Presbycusic Subjects

1980 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 603-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H. Margolis ◽  
Seth M. Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Cutoff Frequency ◽  
Frequency Selectivity ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Critical Ratio ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Noise Masker ◽  
Low Pass ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Stable Estimate

Auditory frequency selectivity was inferred from measurements of the detectability of tonal signals as a function of the cutoff frequency of a low-pass computer-generated noise masker. In Experiment I the effect of small changes in signal-to-noise ratio on inferred auditory frequency selectivity was studied. In Experiment II, frequency selectivity was determined for five normal-hearing subjects and four subjects with sensorineural hearing loss due to presbycusis. Critical ratios (signal-to-noise ratio at masked threshold) also were determined in Experiment II. The results of Experiment I indicate that the low-pass masking experiment provides a stable estimate of the width, but not the position, of the critical masking band. Experiment II revealed elevated critical ratios for three of the four presbycusic subjects. Some hearing-impaired subjects appeared to have normal frequency selectivity despite elevated critical ratios. Other presbycusic subjects demonstrated impaired auditory frequency selectivity. The results suggest that critical ratio and critical masking band data are free to vary independently in hearing-impaired subjects.

Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners

2004 ◽  
Vol 116 (4) ◽  
pp. 2395-2405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mead C. Killion ◽  
Patricia A. Niquette ◽  
Gail I. Gudmundsen ◽  
Lawrence J. Revit ◽  
Shilpi Banerjee
Keyword(s):  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Measuring Signal

Detection of Hearing Loss Using 2f2-f1 and 2f1-f2 Distortion-Product Otoacoustic Emissions

2005 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 1165-1186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy S. Fitzgerald ◽  
Beth A. Prieve
Keyword(s):  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Primary Level ◽  
Distortion Product ◽  
Hearing Status ◽  
Stimulus Parameters

Although many distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) may be measured in the ear canal in response to 2 pure tone stimuli, the majority of clinical studies have focused exclusively on the DPOAE at the frequency 2f1-f2. This study investigated another DPOAE, 2f2-f1, in an attempt to determine the following: (a) the optimal stimulus parameters for its clinical measurement and (b) its utility in differentiating between normal-hearing and hearing-impaired ears at low-to-mid frequencies (≤2000 Hz) when measured either alone or in conjunction with the 2f1-f2 DPOAE. Two experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1, the effects of primary level, level separation, and frequency separation (f2/f1) on 2f2-f1 DPOAE level were evaluated in normal-hearing ears for low-to-mid f2 frequencies (700–2000 Hz). Moderately high-level primaries (60–70 dB SPL) presented at equal levels or with f2 slightly higher than f1 produced the highest 2f2-f1 DPOAE levels. When the f2/f1 ratio that produced the highest 2f2-f1 DPOAE levels was examined across participants, the mean optimal f2/f1 ratio across f2 frequencies and primary level separations was 1.08. In Experiment 2, the accuracy with which DPOAE level or signal-to-noise ratio identified hearing status at the f2 frequency as normal or impaired was evaluated using clinical decision analysis. The 2f2-f1 and 2f1-f2 DPOAEs were measured from both normal-hearing and hearing-impaired ears using 2 sets of stimulus parameters: (a) the traditional parameters for measuring the 2f1-f2 DPOAE (f2/f1 = 1.22; L1, L2 = 65, 55 dB SPL) and (b) the new parameters that were deemed optimal for the 2f2-f1 DPOAE in Experiment 1 (f2/f1 = 1.073, L1 and L2 = 65 dB SPL). Identification of hearing status using 2f2-f1 DPOAE level and signal-to-noise ratio was more accurate when the new stimulus parameters were used compared with the results achieved when the 2f2-f1 DPOAE was recorded using the traditional parameters. However, identification of hearing status was less accurate for the 2f2-f1 DPOAE measured using the new parameters than for the 2f1-f2 DPOAE measured using the traditional parameters. No statistically significant improvements in test performance were achieved when the information from the 2 DPOAEs was combined, either by summing the DPOAE levels or by using logistic regression analysis.

Detection and Recognition of Stop Consonants by Normal.Hearing and Hearing Impaired Listeners

1992 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 942-949 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher W. Turner ◽  
David A. Fabry ◽  
Stephanie Barrett ◽  
Amy R. Horwitz
Keyword(s):  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Stop Consonants ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Masking Noise ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Detection And Recognition

This study examined the possibility that hearing-impaired listeners, in addition to displaying poorer-than-normal recognition of speech presented in background noise, require a larger signal-to-noise ratio for the detection of the speech sounds. Psychometric functions for the detection and recognition of stop consonants were obtained from both normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Expressing the speech levels in terms of their short-term spectra, the detection of consonants for both subject groups occurred at the same signal-to-noise ratio. In contrast, the hearing-impaired listeners displayed poorer recognition performance than the normal-hearing listeners. These results imply that the higher signal-to-noise ratios required for a given level of recognition by some subjects with hearing loss are not due in part to a deficit in detection of the signals in the masking noise, but rather are due exclusively to a deficit in recognition.

Effects of Speech Rate, Background Noise, and Simulated Hearing Loss on Speech Rate Judgment and Speech Intelligibility in Young Listeners

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (01) ◽  
pp. 028-039 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth M. Adams ◽  
Robert E. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Research Design ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Speech Rate ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Moderate Correlation ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Noise Ratio

Purpose: To study the effect of noise on speech rate judgment and signal-to-noise ratio threshold (SNR50) at different speech rates (slow, preferred, and fast). Research Design: Speech rate judgment and SNR50 tasks were completed in a normal-hearing condition and a simulated hearing-loss condition. Study Sample: Twenty-four female and six male young, normal-hearing participants. Results: Speech rate judgment was not affected by background noise regardless of hearing condition. Results of the SNR50 task indicated that, as speech rate increased, performance decreased for both hearing conditions. There was a moderate correlation between speech rate judgment and SNR50 with the various speech rates, such that as judgment of speech rate increased from too slow to too fast, performance deteriorated. Conclusions: These findings can be used to support the need for counseling patients and their families about the potential advantages to using average speech rates or rates that are slightly slowed while conversing in the presence of background noise.

Homogeneity of the 18 QuickSIN™ Lists

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (03) ◽  
pp. 157-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A. McArdle ◽  
Richard H. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
High Performance ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Performance Variability ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Db Difference

The purpose of this study was to determine the list equivalency of the 18 QuickSIN™ (Quick Speech in Noise test) lists. Individuals with normal hearing (n = 24) and with sensorineural hearing loss (n = 72) were studied. Mean recognition performances on the 18 lists by the listeners with normal hearing were 2.8 to 4.3 dB SNR (signal-to-noise ratio), whereas the range was 10.0 to 14.3 dB SNR for the listeners with hearing loss. The psychometric functions for each list showed high performance variability across lists for listeners with hearing loss but not for listeners with normal hearing. For listeners with hearing loss, Lists 4, 5, 13, and 16 fell outside of the critical difference. The data from this study suggest nine lists that provide homogenous results for listeners with and without hearing loss. Finally, there was an 8.7 dB difference in performances between the two groups indicating a more favorable signal-to-noise ratio required by the listeners with hearing loss to obtain equal performance.

Hearing-in-Noise: Comparison of Listeners with Normal and (Aided) Impaired Hearing

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (03) ◽  
pp. 216-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth A. Bentler ◽  
Catherine Palmer ◽  
Andrew B. Dittberner
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing Aid Use

In this study, the performance of 48 listeners with normal hearing was compared to the performance of 46 listeners with documented hearing loss. Various conditions of directional and omnidirectional hearing aid use were studied. The results indicated that when the noise around a listener was stationary, a first- or second-order directional microphone allowed a group of hearing-impaired listeners with mild-to-moderate, bilateral, sensorineural hearing loss to perform similarly to normal hearing listeners on a speech-in-noise task (i.e., they required the same signal-to-noise ratio to achieve 50% understanding). When the noise source was moving around the listener, only the second-order (three-microphone) system set to an adaptive directional response (where the polar pattern changes due to the change in noise location) allowed a group of hearing-impaired individuals with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss to perform similarly to young, normal-hearing individuals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document