Auditory temporal integration in the normal‐hearing and hearing‐impaired cat

1990 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 779-785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet M. Solecki ◽  
George M. Gerken
Keyword(s):  
Temporal Integration ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired

Threshold Measurement Procedures in Brief-Tone Audiometry

1974 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 446-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan M. Richards ◽  
Jan Dunn
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Application ◽  
Temporal Integration ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Reliability Data ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Method Of Adjustment ◽  
Threshold Measurement

Two methods for determining brief-tone audiometric thresholds (at 1000 Hz) were investigated to assess the test-retest reliability and variability of each method. The results indicated that both methods (Bekesy-type tracking with either 1 or 2 dB/sec attenuation rates or the method of adjustment) yielded equivalent thresholds, variability, and reliability data. However, practical considerations dictated that the 2 dB/sec rate was best suited for future clinical application. Individual temporal integration functions for 20 normal-hearing subjects were presented and discussed in relation to their variability and to functions produced by hearing-impaired listeners.

Stimulus Duration and Frequency Discrimination for Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Subjects

1984 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 252-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph W. Hall ◽  
Elizabeth J. Wood
Keyword(s):  
Stimulus Duration ◽  
Temporal Integration ◽  
Detection Threshold ◽  
Frequency Discrimination ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Frequency Difference ◽  
Impaired Group ◽  
Overall Performance ◽  
Pure Tones

Frequency discrimination for 500- and 2000-Hz pure tones at durations of 5, 10, 20, 50, and 200 ms was determined for 10 normal-hearing and 10 cochlear-impaired listeners. Listeners from both groups demonstrated monotonic increases in frequency difference limens as stimulus duration decreased. The functions of the hearing-impaired listeners were parallel to those of the normal-hearing listeners for stimulus durations between 10 and 200 ms, but the overall performance of the hearing-impaired group was poorer than that of the normal-hearing group. The functions of many of the cochlear-impaired subjects were less steep than normal for the shortest durations tested (between 5 and l0 ms). There appeared to be no relation between temporal integration for frequency discrimination and temporal integration for detection threshold. The results are discussed in terms of processes of temporal integration and frequency selectivity.

Hearing Aid Amplification Reduces Communication Effort of People With Hearing Impairment and Their Conversation Partners

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 1299-1311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Beechey ◽  
Jörg M. Buchholz ◽  
Gitte Keidser
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Referential Communication ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Directional Hearing ◽  
Acoustic Environment ◽  
Communication Task ◽  
Acoustic Environments ◽  
The Impact

Objectives This study investigates the hypothesis that hearing aid amplification reduces effort within conversation for both hearing aid wearers and their communication partners. Levels of effort, in the form of speech production modifications, required to maintain successful spoken communication in a range of acoustic environments are compared to earlier reported results measured in unaided conversation conditions. Design Fifteen young adult normal-hearing participants and 15 older adult hearing-impaired participants were tested in pairs. Each pair consisted of one young normal-hearing participant and one older hearing-impaired participant. Hearing-impaired participants received directional hearing aid amplification, according to their audiogram, via a master hearing aid with gain provided according to the NAL-NL2 fitting formula. Pairs of participants were required to take part in naturalistic conversations through the use of a referential communication task. Each pair took part in five conversations, each of 5-min duration. During each conversation, participants were exposed to one of five different realistic acoustic environments presented through highly open headphones. The ordering of acoustic environments across experimental blocks was pseudorandomized. Resulting recordings of conversational speech were analyzed to determine the magnitude of speech modifications, in terms of vocal level and spectrum, produced by normal-hearing talkers as a function of both acoustic environment and the degree of high-frequency average hearing impairment of their conversation partner. Results The magnitude of spectral modifications of speech produced by normal-hearing talkers during conversations with aided hearing-impaired interlocutors was smaller than the speech modifications observed during conversations between the same pairs of participants in the absence of hearing aid amplification. Conclusions The provision of hearing aid amplification reduces the effort required to maintain communication in adverse conditions. This reduction in effort provides benefit to hearing-impaired individuals and also to the conversation partners of hearing-impaired individuals. By considering the impact of amplification on both sides of dyadic conversations, this approach contributes to an increased understanding of the likely impact of hearing impairment on everyday communication.

scholarly journals Perception of Auditory Distance in Normal-Hearing and Moderate-to-Profound Hearing-Impaired Listeners

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 233121651988761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilles Courtois ◽  
Vincent Grimaldi ◽  
Hervé Lissek ◽  
Philippe Estoppey ◽  
Eleftheria Georganti
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Spatial Cues ◽  
Linear Amplification ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Wireless Microphone ◽  
Auditory Distance ◽  
Non Linear

The auditory system allows the estimation of the distance to sound-emitting objects using multiple spatial cues. In virtual acoustics over headphones, a prerequisite to render auditory distance impression is sound externalization, which denotes the perception of synthesized stimuli outside of the head. Prior studies have found that listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss are able to perceive auditory distance and are sensitive to externalization. However, this ability may be degraded by certain factors, such as non-linear amplification in hearing aids or the use of a remote wireless microphone. In this study, 10 normal-hearing and 20 moderate-to-profound hearing-impaired listeners were instructed to estimate the distance of stimuli processed with different methods yielding various perceived auditory distances in the vicinity of the listeners. Two different configurations of non-linear amplification were implemented, and a novel feature aiming to restore a sense of distance in wireless microphone systems was tested. The results showed that the hearing-impaired listeners, even those with a profound hearing loss, were able to discriminate nearby and far sounds that were equalized in level. Their perception of auditory distance was however more contracted than in normal-hearing listeners. Non-linear amplification was found to distort the original spatial cues, but no adverse effect on the ratings of auditory distance was evident. Finally, it was shown that the novel feature was successful in allowing the hearing-impaired participants to perceive externalized sounds with wireless microphone systems.

Dissimilarity Ratings of English Consonants by Normally-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Individuals

1979 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 236-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L. Danhauer ◽  
Ruth M. Lawarre
Keyword(s):  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Interval Scale ◽  
Individual Group ◽  
Speech Stimuli ◽  
Paired Stimuli ◽  
Loudness Level ◽  
Comfortable Loudness

Perceptual patterns in rating dissimilarities among 24 CVs were investigated for a group of normal-hearing and two groups of hearing-impaired subjects (one group with flat, and one group with sloping, sensorineural losses). Stimuli were presented binaurally at most comfortable loudness level and subjects rated the 576 paired stimuli on a 1–7 equal-appearing interval scale. Ratings were submitted to individual group and combined INDSCAL analyses to describe features used by the subjects in their perception of the speech stimuli. Results revealed features such as sibilant, sonorant, plosive and place. Furthermore, normal and hearing-impaired subjects used similar features, and subjects' weightings of features were relatively independent of their audiometric configurations. Results are compared to those of previous studies.

Second Formant Transitions of Selected Consonant-Vowel Combinations in the Speech of Deaf and Normal-Hearing Children

1976 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall B. Monsen
Keyword(s):  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Acoustic Cues ◽  
Target Frequency ◽  
Second Formant ◽  
Hearing Children

Although it is well known that the speech produced by the deaf is generally of low intelligibility, the sources of this low speech intelligibility have generally been ascribed either to aberrant articulation of phonemes or inappropriate prosody. This study was designed to determine to what extent a nonsegmental aspect of speech, formant transitions, may differ in the speech of the deaf and of the normal hearing. The initial second formant transitions of the vowels /i/ and /u/ after labial and alveolar consonants (/b, d, f/) were compared in the speech of six normal-hearing and six hearing-impaired adolescents. In the speech of the hearing-impaired subjects, the second formant transitions may be reduced both in time and in frequency. At its onset, the second formant may be nearer to its eventual target frequency than in the speech of the normal subjects. Since formant transitions are important acoustic cues for the adjacent consonants, reduced F 2 transitions may be an important factor in the low intelligibility of the speech of the deaf.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document