A Comparison of the Effects of Filtering and Sensorineural Hearing Loss on Patterns of Consonant Confusions

1978 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilyn D. Wang ◽  
Charlotte M. Reed ◽  
Robert C. Bilger
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Essentially Normal ◽  
Phonological Features ◽  
Low Pass ◽  
Sequential Information ◽  
The Individual ◽  
High Pass

It has been found that listeners with sensorineural hearing loss who show similar patterns of consonant confusions also tend to have similar audiometric profiles. The present study determined whether normal listeners, presented with filtered speech, would produce consonant confusions similar to those previously reported for the hearing-impaired listener. Consonant confusion matrices were obtained from eight normal-hearing subjects for four sets of CV and VC nonsense syllables presented under six high-pass and six low-pass filtering conditions. Patterns of consonant confusion for each condition were described using phonological features in a sequential information analysis. Severe low-pass filtering produced consonant confusions comparable to those of listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. Severe high-pass filtering gave a result comparable to that of patients with flat or rising audiograms. And, mild filtering resulted in confusion patterns comparable to those of listeners with essentially normal hearing. An explanation in terms of the spectrum, the level of speech, and the configuration of the individual listener’s audiogram is given.

Masking of Speech in Young and Elderly Listeners With Hearing Loss

1994 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 655-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela E. Souza ◽  
Christopher W. Turner
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Masking Noise ◽  
Speech Spectrum ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
High Pass

This study examined the contributions of various properties of background noise to the speech recognition difficulties experienced by young and elderly listeners with hearing loss. Three groups of subjects participated: young listeners with normal hearing, young listeners with sensorineural hearing loss, and elderly listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Sensitivity thresholds up to 4000 Hz of the young and elderly groups of listeners with hearing loss were closely matched, and a high-pass masking noise was added to minimize the contributions of high-frequency (above 4000 Hz) thresholds, which were not closely matched. Speech recognition scores for monosyllables were obtained in the high-pass noise alone and in three noise backgrounds. The latter consisted of high-pass noise plus one of three maskers: speechspectrum noise, speech-spectrum noise temporally modulated by the envelope of multi-talker babble, and multi-talker babble. For all conditions, the groups with hearing impairment consistently scored lower than the group with normal hearing. Although there was a trend toward poorer speech-recognition scores as the masker condition more closely resembled the speech babble, the effect of masker condition was not statistically significant. There was no interaction between group and condition, implying that listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss are affected similarly by the type of background noise when the long-term spectrum of the masker is held constant. A significant effect of age was not observed. In addition, masked thresholds for pure tones in the presence of the speech-spectrum masker were not different for the young and elderly listeners with hearing loss. These results suggest that, for both steady-state and modulated background noises, difficulties in speech recognition for monosyllables are due primarily, and perhaps exclusively, to the presence of sensorineural hearing loss itself, and not to age-specific factors.

The Words-in-Noise Test (WIN), List 3: A Practice List

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (02) ◽  
pp. 092-096 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Wilson ◽  
Kelly L. Watts
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Word List ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Practice List ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
The Individual

Background: The Words-in-Noise Test (WIN) was developed as an instrument to quantify the ability of listeners to understand monosyllabic words in background noise using multitalker babble (Wilson, 2003). The 50% point, which is calculated with the Spearman-Kärber equation (Finney, 1952), is used as the evaluative metric with the WIN materials. Initially, the WIN was designed as a 70-word instrument that presented ten unique words at each of seven signal-to-noise ratios from 24 to 0 dB in 4 dB decrements. Subsequently, the 70-word list was parsed into two 35-word lists that achieved equivalent recognition performances (Wilson and Burks, 2005). This report involves the development of a third list (WIN List 3) that was developed to serve as a practice list to familiarize the participant with listening to words presented in background babble. Purpose: To determine—on young listeners with normal hearing and on older listeners with sensorineural hearing loss—the psychometric properties of the WIN List 3 materials. Research Design: A quasi-experimental, repeated-measures design was used. Study Sample: Twenty-four young adult listeners (M = 21.6 yr) with normal pure-tone thresholds (≤20 dB HL at 250 to 8000 Hz) and 24 older listeners (M = 65.9 yr) with sensorineural hearing loss participated. Data Collection and Analysis: The level of the babble was fixed at 80 dB SPL with the level of the words varied from 104 to 80 dB SPL in 4 dB decrements. Results: For listeners with normal hearing, the 50% points for Lists 1 and 2 were similar (4.3 and 5.1 dB S/N, respectively), both of which were lower than the 50% point for List 3 (7.4 dB S/N). A similar relation was observed with the listeners with hearing loss, 50% points for Lists 1 and 2 of 12.2 and 12.4 dB S/N, respectively, compared to 15.8 dB S/N for List 3. The differences between Lists 1 and 2 and List 3 were significant. The relations among the psychometric functions and the relations among the individual data both reflected these differences. Conclusions: The significant ˜3 dB difference between performances on WIN Lists 1 and 2 and on WIN List 3 by the listeners with normal hearing and the listeners with hearing loss dictates caution with the use of List 3. The use of WIN List 3 should be reserved for ancillary purposes in which equivalent recognition performances are not required, for example, as a practice list or a stand alone measure.

Sensorineural Hearing Loss and Upward Spread of Masking

1970 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 426-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen S. Martin ◽  
J. M. Pickett
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Auditory Thresholds ◽  
Noise Rejection ◽  
Low Pass ◽  
Masking Noise ◽  
Sensorineural Loss

Pure-tone auditory thresholds were obtained in quiet and in three levels of masking noise for one normal-hearing group and five groups of subjects with different degrees of sensorineural loss. The masker was a low-pass noise, cut off at 250 Hz. It was presented at overall levels of 77, 97, and 107 dB SPL. Pure-tone thresholds were obtained at test frequencies within and above the masking band. A measure of noise rejection slope was used to describe spread of masking. Degree of loss, configuration of loss, and level of masking noise appear to have marked influences on upward spread of masking patterns in sensorineural subjects.

Dimensions of Consonant Perception in Normal and Hearing-Impaired Listeners

1975 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 444-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Walden ◽  
Allen A. Montgomery
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Similarity Judgments ◽  
The Individual

Judgments of consonant similarity were obtained from subjects who had normal hearing, high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss, or relatively flat sensorineural hearing loss. The individual differences model through program INDSCAL was used to derive a set of perceptual features empirically from the similarity judgments, and to group the subjects on the basis of strength of feature usage. The analysis revealed that sonorance was the dominant dimension in the similarity judgments of the subjects with high-frequency hearing losses, while sibilance tended to dominate the judgments of the subjects with flat audiometric configurations. The normal-hearing subjects tended to weight these two dimensions approximately equally. These differences in similarity judgments were observed based upon audiometric configuration, despite the fact that the two hearing-impaired groups were not unique in word-recognition ability.

scholarly journals A Comparison of Word-Recognition Performances on the Auditec and VA Recorded Versions of Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by Young Listeners with Normal Hearing and by Older Listeners with Sensorineural Hearing Loss Using a Randomized Presentation-Level Paradigm

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (05) ◽  
pp. 370-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Similar Data ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Northwestern University ◽  
Word Lists ◽  
The Individual

AbstractThe Auditec of St. Louis and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recorded versions of the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6) are in common usage. Data on young adults with normal hearing for pure tones (YNH) demonstrate equal recognition performances on the two versions when the VA version is presented 5 dB higher but similar data on older listeners with sensorineural hearing loss (OHL) are lacking.To compare word-recognition performances on the Auditec and VA versions of NU-6 presented at six presentation levels with YNH and OHL listeners.A quasi-experimental, repeated-measures design was used.Twelve YNH (M = 24.0 years; PTA = 9.9-dB HL) and 36 OHL listeners (M = 71.6 years; PTA = 26.7-dB HL) participated in three, one-hour sessions.Each listener received 100 stimulus words that were randomized by 6 presentation levels for each of two speakers (YNH, −2 to 28-dB SL; OHL, −2 to 38-dB SL). The sessions were limited to 25 practice and 400 experimental words. Digital versions of the 16, 25-word tracks for each session were alternated between speakers.Each of the 48 listeners had higher recognition performances on the Auditec version of NU-6 than on the VA version. The respective overall recognition performances on the Auditec and VA versions were 71.4% and 64.1% (YNH) and 68.7% and 58.2% (OHL). At the highest presentation levels, recognition performances on the two versions differed by only 0.5% (YNH) and 3.3% (OHL). At the 50% correct point, performances on the Auditec version were 3.2 dB (YNH) and 6.1 dB (OHL) better than those on the VA version. The slopes at the 50% points on the mean functions for both speakers were about 4.9%/dB (YNH) and 3.0%/dB (OHL); however, the slopes evaluated from the individual listener data were steeper, 5.2 to 5.3%/dB (YNH) and 3.3 to 3.5%/dB (OHL). When the individual data were transformed from dB SL to dB HL, the differences between the two listener groups were emphasized. The four functions (2 speakers by 2 listener groups) were plotted for each of the 48 participants and each of the 200 words, which revealed the gamut of relations among the datasets. Examination of the data for each speaker across test sessions, in the traditional 50-word lists, and in the typically used 25-word lists of Randomization A revealed no differences of clinical concern. Finally, introspective reports from the listeners revealed that 91.7% and 83.3% of the YNH and OHL listeners, respectively, thought the Auditec speaker was easier to understand than the VA speaker. Recognition performances on each participant and on each word are presented.

Consonant Confusions in Patients with Sensorineural Hearing Loss

1976 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 718-748 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert C. Bilger ◽  
Marilyn D. Wang
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Scaling Analysis ◽  
Multidimensional Scaling Analysis ◽  
Essentially Normal ◽  
Phonological Features ◽  
Overall Performance ◽  
Confusion Matrices

Consonant confusion matrices were obtained from 22 outpatient listeners with sensorineural hearing loss for four sets of CV and VC nonsense syllables, presented monaurally at SRT + 40 dB. Testing was typically conducted for six hours on each of two separate days. Overall performance and patterns of confusions were stable over time. Analysis of the matrices in terms of phonological features indicated that the patterns of consonant confusions varied both with degree and configuration of the subject’s loss. Scaling of intersubject similarity using a pairwise multidimensional scaling analysis resulted in consistent classification of subjects according to audiometric configuration into three groups-essentially normal hearing, flat or rising audiograms, and high-frequency hearing losses.

Frequency Response Options for People With Low-Frequency Sensorineural Hearing Loss

1992 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 56-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald J. Schum ◽  
M. Jane Collins
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Previous History ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Low Pass ◽  
History Of ◽  
High Pass

Six listeners with low-frequency sensorineural hearing loss completed objective and subjective speech recognition tasks while listening to signals spectrally shaped to replicate traditional low-pass amplification and various alternative schemes. The alternative schemes included high-pass, broadband, and K-bass responses. Both objectively and subjectively, listeners achieved greater benefit from the alternative amplification schemes than from low-pass amplification. A case example is presented in which a person with low-frequency hearing loss and a previous history of unsuccessful hearing aid use has been using high-frequency emphasis amplification successfully for the past 6 years. The results call into question the clinical practice of providing amplification only in the region of hearing loss for listeners with low-frequency impairments.

scholarly journals Acoustic reflex measurements and the loudness function in sensorineural hearing loss

1980 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheila Uliel
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Acoustic Impedance ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Acoustic Reflex ◽  
Reflex Responses ◽  
Loudness Function ◽  
The Individual

The suprathreshold acoustic reflex responses of forty two ears affected by sensorineural hearing loss of cochlear origin and fifty-eight ears demonstrating normal hearing, were recorded by means of an electro-acoustic impedance meter and attached X-Y recorder. The recordings were done in ascending and descending fashion,  at successively increasing and decreasing 5dB intensity levels from 90-120-90 dB HL respectively, for the individual pure-tone frequencies of 500, 1 000, 2 000 and 4 000 Hz. The contralateral mode of measurement was employed. Analysis of  these recordings indicated that the acoustic reflex  responses could be differentiated into five  characteristic patterns of  growth, which could be depicted upon a continuum of peaked, peaked-rounded, rounded, rounded-flat,  and flat  shapes. The peaked and peaked-rounded patterns were found  to predominate at all four pure-tone frequencies  in the normal ears, while the rounded-fiat  and flat  patterns were found  to predominate only at the higher pure-tone frequencies of 2 000 and 4 000 Hz in the ears affected  by sensorineural hearing loss. This latter relationship was also able to be applied to two disorders of  the loudness functio— loudness recruitment and hyperacusis. It was concluded that the flattened  acoustic reflex  patterns at the higher pure-tone frequencies  constituted a potential diagnostic cue related to the differential  diagnosis of sensorineural hearing loss, and to disorders of  the loudness function.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document