Speech recognition in continuous and fluctuating maskers by listeners with normal and impaired hearing: Effects of presentation level

2002 ◽  
Vol 111 (5) ◽  
pp. 2426
Author(s):  
Van Summers ◽  
Michelle Molis
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Presentation Level

The Effects of Speech Presentation Level on Acceptance of Noise in Listeners With Normal and Impaired Hearing

2007 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 878-885 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda C. Freyaldenhoven ◽  
Patrick N. Plyler ◽  
James W. Thelin ◽  
Mark S. Hedrick
Keyword(s):  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Presentation Level ◽  
Speech Presentation

Across-Frequency Comparison of Temporal Speech Information by Listeners With Normal and Impaired Hearing

2002 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 1262-1275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric W. Healy ◽  
Sid P. Bacon
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Recognition Task ◽  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Sensation Level ◽  
Frequency Information ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Impairment ◽  
Frequency Comparison ◽  
Speech Information

Listeners with normal hearing (NH) and with sensorineural hearing impairment (HI) were tested on a speech-recognition task requiring across-frequency integration of temporal speech information. Listeners with NH correctly identified a majority of key words in everyday sentences when presented with a synchronous pair of speech-modulated tones at 750 and 3000 Hz. They could tolerate small amounts (12.5 ms) of across-frequency asynchrony, but performance fell as the delay between bands was increased to 100 ms. Listeners with HI performed more poorly than those with NH when presented with synchronous across-frequency information. Further, performance of listeners with HI fell as a function of asynchrony more steeply than that of their NH counterparts. These results suggest that listeners with HI have particular difficulty comparing and effectively processing temporal speech information at different frequencies. The increased influence of asynchrony indicates that these listeners are especially hindered by slight disruptions in across-frequency information, which implies a less robust comparison mechanism. The results could not be attributed to differences in signal or sensation level, or in listener age, but instead appear to be related to the degree of hearing loss. This across-frequency deficit is unlikely to be attributed to known processing difficulties and may exist in addition to other known disruptions.

Unilateral versus Bilateral Amplification for Adults with Impaired Hearing

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (08) ◽  
pp. 574-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Therese C. Walden ◽  
Brian E. Walden
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Deleterious Effect ◽  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
The Right

This study compared unilateral and bilateral aided speech recognition in background noise in 28 patients being fitted with amplification. Aided QuickSIN (Quick Speech-in-Noise test) scores were obtained for bilateral amplification and for unilateral amplification in each ear. In addition, right-ear directed and left-ear directed recall on the Dichotic Digits Test (DDT) was obtained from each participant. Results revealed that the vast majority of patients obtained better speech recognition in background noise on the QuickSIN from unilateral amplification than from bilateral amplification. There was a greater tendency for bilateral amplification to have a deleterious effect among older patients. Most frequently, better aided QuickSIN performance was obtained in the right ear of participants, despite similar hearing thresholds in both ears. Finally, patients tended to perform better on the DDT in the ear that provided less SNR loss on the QuickSIN. Results suggest that bilateral amplification may not always be beneficial in every daily listening environment when background noise is present, and it may be advisable for patients wearing bilateral amplification to remove one hearing aid when difficulty is encountered understanding speech in background noise.

scholarly journals Behavioral Validation of the Smartphone for Remote Microphone Technology

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (04) ◽  
pp. 291-301
Author(s):  
Stephanie Tittle ◽  
Linda M. Thibodeau ◽  
Issa Panahi ◽  
Serkan Tokgoz ◽  
Nikhil Shankar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Communication Disorders ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Behavioral Validation ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

AbstractAs part of a National Institutes of Health–National Institute on Deafness and Other communication Disorders (NIH-NIDCD)–supported project to develop open-source research and smartphone-based apps for enhancing speech recognition in noise, an app called Smartphone Hearing Aid Research Project Version 2 (SHARP-2) was tested with persons with normal and impaired hearing when using three sets of hearing aids (HAs) with wireless connectivity to an iPhone. Participants were asked to type sentences presented from a speaker in front of them while hearing noise from behind in two conditions, HA alone and HA + SHARP-2 app running on the iPhone. The signal was presented at a constant level of 65 dBA and the signal-to-noise ratio varied from −10 to +10, so that the task was difficult when listening through the bilateral HAs alone. This was important to allow for improvement to be measured when the HAs were connected to the SHARP-2 app on the smartphone. Benefit was achieved for most listeners with all three manufacturer HAs with the greatest improvements recorded for persons with normal (33.56%) and impaired hearing (22.21%) when using the SHARP-2 app with one manufacturer's made-for-all phones HAs. These results support the continued development of smartphone-based apps as an economical solution for enhancing speech recognition in noise for both persons with normal and impaired hearing.

Accuracy of Adaptive Procedure Estimates of PB-Max Level

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Candace A. Kamm ◽  
Donald E. Morgan ◽  
Donald D. Dirks
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Word List ◽  
Intensity Function ◽  
Intensity Level ◽  
Adaptive Procedure ◽  
Presentation Level ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Single Presentation ◽  
Similar Accuracy

A measure of maximum speech recognition ability (PB max) is often obtained in the clinical audiologic evaluation of patients. However, without developing a complete performance-intensity function (PIF), it is often difficult to determine an appropriate intensity level for measuring PB max. Levitt (1978) has described an adaptive procedure designed to estimate an intensity level at which maximum speech recognition performance could be measured. We have investigated the accuracy of this procedure by comparing speech recognition performance on a CNC word list presented at the level estimated by the adaptive procedure with maximum performance as measured on the listener's performance-intensity function. Using the presentation level indicated by the adaptive procedure, PB max scores were obtained for 12 of 16 normally hearing subjects and 19 of 25 listeners with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss. Similar accuracy was obtained for the hearing-impaired subjects using a single presentation level of 95 dB SPL, while use of a 40 dB SL speech level would have resulted in a lower proportion of PB-max measurements. Although PB max is most accurately estimated by delineating the entire performance-intensity function, the current results suggest that, if speech recognition is to be measured only at a single level, scores obtained at the level estimated by the adaptive procedure or at 95 dB SPL may serve as reasonable estimates of PB max for listeners with primarily cochlear hearing losses of ⩽ 50 dB.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document