Acceptance of background noise as a function of speech presentation level

2003 ◽  
Vol 113 (4) ◽  
pp. 2288-2288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clifford A. Franklin ◽  
Anna K. Nabelek ◽  
Samuel B. Burchfield
Keyword(s):  
Background Noise ◽  
Presentation Level ◽  
Speech Presentation

The Effect of Speech Presentation Level on Acceptance of Background Noise in Listeners with Normal Hearing

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (02) ◽  
pp. 141-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clifford A. Franklin ◽  
James W. Thelin ◽  
Anna K. Nabelek ◽  
Samuel B. Burchfield
Keyword(s):  
Noise Level ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Presentation Level ◽  
Background Noise Level ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Speech Presentation

A method has been established to measure the maximum acceptable background noise level (BNL) for a listener, while listening to speech at the most comfortable listening level (MCL). The acceptable noise level (ANL) is the difference between BNL and MCL. In the present study, the ANL procedure was used to measure acceptance of noise, first, in the presence of speech at MCL and, then, for speech presented at much lower and higher levels in listeners with normal hearing. This study used the term ANL to describe the results obtained at MCL and also at other speech presentation levels. The mean ANL at MCL was 15.5 dB, which is comparable to results obtained by previous investigators. ANL increases systematically with speech presentation level. Mean ANLs ranged from 10.6 dB when speech was presented at 20 dB HL to 24.6 dB when speech was presented at 76 dB HL. The results indicated that the acceptance of noise depends significantly on speech presentation level.

Effect of Stimulant Medication on the Acceptance of Background Noise in Individuals with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (09) ◽  
pp. 677-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda C. Freyaldenhoven ◽  
James W. Thelin ◽  
Patrick N. Plyler ◽  
Anna K. Nabelek ◽  
Samuel B. Burchfield
Keyword(s):  
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Attention Deficit ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Stimulant Medication ◽  
Female College Students ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Presentation Level ◽  
Students With Adhd ◽  
Auditory Tasks ◽  
Speech Presentation

Available data indicate that, on some auditory tasks, individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD/ADD) perform more poorly than individuals without ADHD/ADD. Research also indicates that performance may improve with the use of stimulant medication. The present study (1) examined the effect of stimulant medication on acceptance of background noise in individuals with ADHD/ADD and (2) investigated the dependence of speech presentation level on acceptance of noise in persons with ADHD/ADD. Fifteen normal hearing female college students with ADHD/ADD served as the participants. The participants were medicated in one session and unmedicated in the other session. Results showed that medication significantly increased the acceptance of background noise for individuals with ADHD/ADD. Results also indicated that acceptance of noise depends on speech presentation level, but the improvement in acceptance of noise was not dependent on medication.

Word Recognition in Multitalker Babble Measured with Two Psychophysical Methods

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (08) ◽  
pp. 622-630 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Wilson ◽  
Christopher A. Burks ◽  
Deborah G. Weakley
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Random Presentation ◽  
Presentation Level ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Northwestern University ◽  
And Performance ◽  
The Relationship

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the relationship between psychometric functions for words presented in multitalker babble using a descending presentation level protocol and a random presentation level protocol. Forty veterans (mean = 63.5 years) with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing losses were enrolled. Seventy of the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 words spoken by the VA female speaker were presented at seven signal-to-babble ratios from 24 to 0 dB (10 words/step). Although the random procedure required 69 sec longer to administer than the descending protocol, there was no significant difference between the results obtained with the two psychophysical methods. There was almost no relation between the perceived ability of the listeners to understand speech in background noise and their measured ability to understand speech in multitalker babble. Likewise, there was a tenuous relation between pure-tone thresholds and performance on the words in babble and between recognition performance in quiet and performance on the words in babble.

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

The Effect of Presentation Level on Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners' Acceptable Speech and Noise Levels

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (01) ◽  
pp. 017-025 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karrie L. Recker ◽  
Brent W. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Presentation Level ◽  
Different Levels

Background: Acceptable noise level (ANL) is a measure of the maximum amount of background noise that a listener is willing to “put up with” while listening to running speech. This test is unique in that it can predict with a high degree of accuracy who will be a successful hearing-aid wearer. Individuals who tolerate high levels of background noise are generally successful hearing-aid wearers, whereas individuals who do not tolerate background noise well are generally unsuccessful hearing-aid wearers. Purpose: Various studies have been unsuccessful in trying to relate ANLs to listener characteristics or other test results. Presumably, understanding the perceptual mechanism by which listeners determine their ANLs could provide an understanding of the ANL's unique predictive abilities and our current inability to correlate these results with other listener attributes or test results. As a first step in investigating this problem, the relationships between ANLs and other threshold measures where listeners adjust the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) according to some criterion in a way similar to the ANL measure were examined. Research Design and Study Sample: Ten normal-hearing and 10 hearing-impaired individuals participated in a laboratory experiment that followed a within-subjects, repeated-measures design. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants were seated in a sound booth. Running speech and noise (eight-talker babble) were presented from a loudspeaker at 0°, 3 ft in front of the participant. Individuals adjusted either the level of the speech or the level of the background noise. Specifically, with the speech fixed at different levels (50, 63, 75, or 88 dBA), participants performed the ANL task, in which they adjusted the level of the background noise to the maximum level at which they were willing to listen while following the speech. With the noise fixed at different levels (50, 60, 70, or 80 dBA), participants adjusted the level of the speech to the minimum, preferred, or maximum levels at which they were willing to listen while following the speech. Additionally, for the minimum acceptable speech level task, each participant was tested at four participant-specific noise levels, based on his/her ANL results. To emphasize that the speech level was adjusted in these measurements, three new terms were coined: “minimum acceptable speech level” (MinASL), “preferred speech level” (PSL), and “maximum acceptable speech level” (MaxASL). Each condition was presented twice, and the results were averaged. Test order and presentation level were randomized. Hearing-impaired participants were tested in the aided condition only. Results: For most participants, as the presentation level increased, SNRs increased for the ANL test but decreased for the MinASL, PSL, and MaxASL tests. For a few participants, ANLs were similar to MinASLs. For most test conditions, the normal-hearing results were not significantly different from those of the hearing-impaired participants. Conclusions: For most participants, stimulus level affected the SNRs at which they were willing to listen. However, a subset of listeners was willing to listen at a constant SNR for the ANL and MinASL tests. Furthermore, for these individuals, ANLs and MinASLs were roughly equal, suggesting that these individuals may have used the same perceptual criterion for both tests.

Microdensitometer—computer correlation analysis of ultrastructural periodicity

1978 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 32-33
Author(s):  
D.R. Ensor ◽  
C.G. Jensen ◽  
J.A. Fillery ◽  
R.J.K. Baker
Keyword(s):  
Correlation Analysis ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Computer Control ◽  
Optical Diffraction ◽  
Screw Thread ◽  
Straight Line ◽  
Computer Storage ◽  
Correlation Process ◽  
Electron Microscope Image ◽  
Fixed Beam

Because periodicity is a major indicator of structural organisation numerous methods have been devised to demonstrate periodicity masked by background “noise” in the electron microscope image (e.g. photographic image reinforcement, Markham et al, 1964; optical diffraction techniques, Horne, 1977; McIntosh,1974). Computer correlation analysis of a densitometer tracing provides another means of minimising "noise". The correlation process uncovers periodic information by cancelling random elements. The technique is easily executed, the results are readily interpreted and the computer removes tedium, lends accuracy and assists in impartiality.A scanning densitometer was adapted to allow computer control of the scan and to give direct computer storage of the data. A photographic transparency of the image to be scanned is mounted on a stage coupled directly to an accurate screw thread driven by a stepping motor. The stage is moved so that the fixed beam of the densitometer (which is directed normal to the transparency) traces a straight line along the structure of interest in the image.

Use of a Mild-Gain Hearing Aid by Middle-Age Normal-Hearing Adults Who Do and Do Not Self-Report Trouble Hearing in Background Noise

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-428
Author(s):  
Jasleen Singh ◽  
Karen A. Doherty
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Middle Age ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Hearing Problems

Purpose The aim of the study was to assess how the use of a mild-gain hearing aid can affect hearing handicap, motivation, and attitudes toward hearing aids for middle-age, normal-hearing adults who do and do not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Method A total of 20 participants (45–60 years of age) with clinically normal-hearing thresholds (< 25 dB HL) were enrolled in this study. Ten self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise, and 10 did not self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. All participants were fit with mild-gain hearing aids, bilaterally, and were asked to wear them for 2 weeks. Hearing handicap, attitudes toward hearing aids and hearing loss, and motivation to address hearing problems were evaluated before and after participants wore the hearing aids. Participants were also asked if they would consider purchasing a hearing aid before and after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Results After wearing the hearing aids for 2 weeks, hearing handicap scores decreased for the participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise. No changes in hearing handicap scores were observed for the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. The participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise also reported greater personal distress from their hearing problems, were more motivated to address their hearing problems, and had higher levels of hearing handicap compared to the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Only 20% (2/10) of the participants who self-reported trouble hearing in background noise reported that they would consider purchasing a hearing aid after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Conclusions The use of mild-gain hearing aids has the potential to reduce hearing handicap for normal-hearing, middle-age adults who self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. However, this may not be the most appropriate treatment option for their current hearing problems given that only 20% of these participants would consider purchasing a hearing aid after wearing hearing aids for 2 weeks.

Selecting the Optimal FM System for Children With Cochlear Implants

2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-24
Author(s):  
Erin C. Schafer
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
System Input ◽  
Optimal Type

Children who use cochlear implants experience significant difficulty hearing speech in the presence of background noise, such as in the classroom. To address these difficulties, audiologists often recommend frequency-modulated (FM) systems for children with cochlear implants. The purpose of this article is to examine current empirical research in the area of FM systems and cochlear implants. Discussion topics will include selecting the optimal type of FM receiver, benefits of binaural FM-system input, importance of DAI receiver-gain settings, and effects of speech-processor programming on speech recognition. FM systems significantly improve the signal-to-noise ratio at the child's ear through the use of three types of FM receivers: mounted speakers, desktop speakers, or direct-audio input (DAI). This discussion will aid audiologists in making evidence-based recommendations for children using cochlear implants and FM systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document