Masked thresholds and consonant recognition in low‐pass maskers for hearing‐impaired and normal‐hearing listeners

1995 ◽  
Vol 97 (4) ◽  
pp. 2430-2441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judy R. Dubno ◽  
Jayne B. Ahlstrom
Keyword(s):  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Consonant Recognition ◽  
Low Pass

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.

Consonant-Recognition Patterns and Self-Assessment of Hearing Handicap

1991 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 1397-1409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Goldschmidt Hustedde ◽  
Terry L. Wiley
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Error Patterns ◽  
Consonant Recognition ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Hearing Handicap

Two companion experiments were conducted with normal-hearing subjects and subjects with high-frequency, sensorineural hearing loss. In Experiment 1, the validity of a self-assessment device of hearing handicap was evaluated in two groups of hearing-impaired listeners with significantly different consonant-recognition ability. Data for the Hearing Performance Inventory—Revised (Lamb, Owens, & Schubert, 1983) did not reveal differences in self-perceived handicap for the two groups of hearing-impaired listeners; it was sensitive to perceived differences in hearing abilities for listeners who did and did not have a hearing loss. Experiment 2 was aimed at evaluation of consonant error patterns that accounted for observed group differences in consonant-recognition ability. Error patterns on the Nonsense-Syllable Test (NST) across the two subject groups differed in both degree and type of error. Listeners in the group with poorer NST performance always demonstrated greater difficulty with selected low-frequency and high-frequency syllables than did listeners in the group with better NST performance. Overall, the NST was sensitive to differences in consonant-recognition ability for normal hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

Speech Perception in Low-Pass Filtered Noise for Normal and Hearing-Impaired Listeners

1990 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 290-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia G. Stelmachowicz ◽  
Dawna E. Lewis ◽  
William J. Kelly ◽  
Walt Jesteadt
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Adaptive Procedure ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Fixed Level ◽  
Prosodic Cues ◽  
Low Pass ◽  
Filtered Noise

Two experiments were conducted concerning speech perception in noise. In Experiment 1, a comparison was made between adaptive and fixed-level procedures to estimate the S/N ratio at which 50% correct performance occurred for nonsense syllables for normal-hearing listeners. The two methods yield similar S/N ratio estimates, but the consonant confusions found with the fixed-level method could not be predicted accurately from the adaptive procedure. In Experiment 2, the adaptive procedure was used to estimate the S/N ratio for a 50% performance level in low-pass filtered noise with a range of cutoff frequencies. Data were obtained from 5 normal-hearing listeners at two speech levels (50 and 75 dB SPL) and 4 hearing-impaired listeners at one speech level (75 dB SPL). The hearing-impaired listeners required a better S/N ratio than the normal listeners at either presentation level for all except the widest bandwidth, where their S/N ratios began to converge with the normal values. In addition, the S/N ratios for the hearing-impaired listeners plateaued at relatively narrow bandwidths (0.75 to 2.5 kHz) compared to the normal-hearing group (3.0 to 5.0 kHz). That is, the addition of high-frequency components to the noise did not alter performance. These findings suggest that the hearing-impaired listeners may have relied upon either low-frequency cues or prosodic cues in the perception of these test items.

scholarly journals Effect of the Target and Conflicting Frequency and Time Ranges on Consonant Enhancement in Normal-Hearing Listeners

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang-Soo Yoon
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Peak Performance ◽  
Time Range ◽  
Frequency Range ◽  
Target Condition ◽  
Target Frequency ◽  
Target Time ◽  
Consonant Recognition ◽  
Low Pass

In this paper, the effects of intensifying useful frequency and time regions (target frequency and time ranges) and the removal of detrimental frequency and time regions (conflicting frequency and time ranges) for consonant enhancement were determined. Thirteen normal-hearing (NH) listeners participated in two experiments. In the first experiment, the target and conflicting frequency and time ranges for each consonant were identified under a quiet, dichotic listening condition by analyzing consonant confusion matrices. The target frequency range was defined as the frequency range that provided the highest performance and was decreased 40% from the peak performance from both high-pass filtering (HPF) and low-pass filtering (LPF) schemes. The conflicting frequency range was defined as the frequency range that yielded the peak errors of the most confused consonants and was 20% less than the peak error from both filtering schemes. The target time range was defined as a consonant segment that provided the highest performance and was decreased 40% from that peak performance when the duration of the consonant was systematically truncated from the onset. The conflicting time ranges were defined on the coincided target time range because, if they temporarily coincide, the conflicting frequency ranges would be the most detrimental factor affecting the target frequency ranges. In the second experiment, consonant recognition was binaurally measured in noise under three signal processing conditions: unprocessed, intensified target ranges by a 6-dB gain (target), and combined intensified target and removed conflicting ranges (target-conflicting). The results showed that consonant recognition improved significantly with the target condition but greatly deteriorated with a target-conflicting condition. The target condition helped transmit voicing and manner cues while the target-conflicting condition limited the transmission of these cues. Confusion analyses showed that the effect of the signal processing on consonant improvement was consonant-specific: the unprocessed condition was the best for /da, pa, ma, sa/; the target condition was the best for /ga, fa, va, za, ʒa/; and the target-conflicting condition was the best for /na, ʃa/. Perception of /ba, ta, ka/ was independent of the signal processing. The results suggest that enhancing the target ranges is an efficient way to improve consonant recognition while the removal of conflicting ranges negatively impacts consonant recognition.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document