scholarly journals Influence of Instantaneous Compression on Recognition of Speech in Noise with Temporal Dips

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (01) ◽  
pp. 016-030 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Rasetshwane ◽  
David A. Raybine ◽  
Judy G. Kopun ◽  
Michael P. Gorga ◽  
Stephen T. Neely
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Processing Condition ◽  
Simultaneous Presentation ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Signal Processing Algorithm ◽  
Masking Release

AbstractIn listening environments with background noise that fluctuates in level, listeners with normal hearing can “glimpse” speech during dips in the noise, resulting in better speech recognition in fluctuating noise than in steady noise at the same overall level (referred to as masking release). Listeners with sensorineural hearing loss show less masking release. Amplification can improve masking release but not to the same extent that it does for listeners with normal hearing.The purpose of this study was to compare masking release for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss obtained with an experimental hearing-aid signal-processing algorithm with instantaneous compression (referred to as a suppression hearing aid, SHA) to masking release obtained with fast compression. The suppression hearing aid mimics effects of normal cochlear suppression, i.e., the reduction in the response to one sound by the simultaneous presentation of another sound.A within-participant design with repeated measures across test conditions was used.Participants included 29 adults with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss and 21 adults with normal hearing.Participants with sensorineural hearing loss were fitted with simulators for SHA and a generic hearing aid (GHA) with fast (but not instantaneous) compression (5 ms attack and 50 ms release times) and no suppression. Gain was prescribed using either an experimental method based on categorical loudness scaling (CLS) or the Desired Sensation Level (DSL) algorithm version 5a, resulting in a total of four processing conditions: CLS-GHA, CLS-SHA, DSL-GHA, and DSL-SHA.All participants listened to consonant-vowel-consonant nonwords in the presence of temporally-modulated and steady noise. An adaptive-tracking procedure was used to determine the signal-to-noise ratio required to obtain 29% and 71% correct. Measurements were made with amplification for participants with sensorineural hearing loss and without amplification for participants with normal hearing.Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to determine the influence of within-participant factors of noise type and, for participants with sensorineural hearing loss, processing condition on masking release. Pearson correlational analysis was used to assess the effect of age on masking release for participants with sensorineural hearing loss.Statistically significant masking release was observed for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss for 29% correct, but not for 71% correct. However, the amount of masking release was less than masking release for participants with normal hearing. There were no significant differences among the amplification conditions for participants with sensorineural hearing loss.The results suggest that amplification with either instantaneous or fast compression resulted in similar masking release for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. However, the masking release was less for participants with hearing loss than it was for those with normal hearing.

The Effects of Hearing Loss and Noise Masking on the Masking Release for Speech in Temporally Complex Backgrounds

1998 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 549-563 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sid P. Bacon ◽  
Jane M. Opie ◽  
Danielle Y. Montoya
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Steady State ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
The Other ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Noise Masking ◽  
Masking Release

Speech recognition was measured in three groups of listeners: those with sensorineural hearing loss of (presumably) cochlear origin (HL), those with normal hearing (NH), and those with normal hearing who listened in the presence of a spectrally shaped noise that elevated their pure-tone thresholds to match those of individual listeners in the HL group (NM). Performance was measured in four backgrounds that differed only in their temporal envelope: steady-state (SS) speech-shaped noise, speech-shaped noise modulated by the envelope of multi-talker babble (MT), speech-shaped noise modulated by the envelope of single-talker speech (ST), and speech-shaped noise modulated by a 10-Hz square wave (SQ). Threshold signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) were typically best in the ST and especially the SQ conditions, indicating a masking release in those modulated backgrounds. SNRs in the SS and MT conditions were essentially identical to one another. The masking release was largest in the listeners in the NH group, and it tended to decrease as hearing loss increased. In 5 of the 11 listeners in the HL group, the masking release was nearly identical to that obtained in the NM group matched to those listeners; in the other 6 listeners, the release was smaller than that in the NM group. The reduced masking release was simulated best in those HL listeners for whom the masking release was relatively large. These results suggest that reduced masking release for speech in listeners with sensorineural hearing loss can only sometimes be accounted for entirely by reduced audibility.

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.

scholarly journals The SSI and NU6 in Clinical Hearing Aid Evaluation

1980 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Orchik ◽  
Norma Roddy
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Northwestern University

The Synthetic Sentence Identification (SSI) and the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU6) were compared in a hearing aid evaluation procedure using normal-hearing listeners and subjects with sensorineural hearing loss. Listener performance was assessed at three message-to-competition ratios (MCR) employing the same competing message. Aided benefit and residual deficit were evaluated for both measures and, in general, the results obtained with the NU6 indicated greater aided benefit as well as greater residual deficit than the SSI for these hearing-impaired subjects. The results are discussed in terms of the implications for clinical hearing aid evaluations.

The Onset–Offset N1–P2 Auditory Evoked Response in Individuals With High-Frequency Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Responses to Broadband Noise

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Jennifer E. Gonzalez ◽  
Frank E. Musiek
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Stimulus Duration ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Broadband Noise ◽  
Evoked Response ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Auditory Evoked Response

Purpose Clinical use of electrophysiologic measures has been limited to use of brief stimuli to evoke responses. While brief stimuli elicit onset responses in individuals with normal hearing and normal central auditory nervous system (CANS) function, responses represent the integrity of a fraction of the mainly excitatory central auditory neurons. Longer stimuli could provide information regarding excitatory and inhibitory CANS function. Our goal was to measure the onset–offset N1–P2 auditory evoked response in subjects with normal hearing and subjects with moderate high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss (HFSNHL) to determine whether the response can be measured in individuals with moderate HFSNHL and, if so, whether waveform components differ between participant groups. Method Waveforms were obtained from 10 participants with normal hearing and seven participants with HFSNHL aged 40–67 years using 2,000-ms broadband noise stimuli with 40-ms rise–fall times presented at 50 dB SL referenced to stimulus threshold. Amplitudes and latencies were analyzed via repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). N1 and P2 onset latencies were compared to offset counterparts via repeated-measures ANOVA after subtracting 2,000 ms from the offset latencies to account for stimulus duration. Offset-to-onset trough-to-peak amplitude ratios between groups were compared using a one-way ANOVA. Results Responses were evoked from all participants. There were no differences between participant groups for the waveform components measured. Response × Participant Group interactions were not significant. Offset N1–P2 latencies were significantly shorter than onset counterparts after adjusting for stimulus duration (normal hearing: 43 ms shorter; HFSNHL: 47 ms shorter). Conclusions Onset–offset N1–P2 responses were resistant to moderate HFSNHL. It is likely that the onset was elicited by the presentation of a sound in silence and the offset by the change in stimulus envelope from plateau to fall, suggesting an excitatory onset response and an inhibitory-influenced offset response. Results indicated this protocol can be used to investigate CANS function in individuals with moderate HFSNHL. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14669007

Otologics Fully Implantable Hearing Device Phase II Results

2008 ◽  
Vol 139 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. P57-P57
Author(s):  
Drew M Horlbeck ◽  
Herman A Jenkins ◽  
Ben J Balough ◽  
Michael E Hoffer
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hearing Device

Objective The efficacy of the Otologics Fully Implantable Hearing Device (MET) was assessed in adult patients with bilateral moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss. Methods Surgical insertion of this totally implanted system was identical to the Phase I study. A repeated-measures within-subjects design assessed aided sound field thresholds and speech performances with the subject's own, appropriately fit, walk-in hearing aid(s) and the Otologics Fully Implantable Hearing Device. Results Six- and 12-month Phase II data will be presented. Ten patients were implanted and activated as part Phase II clinical trial. Three patients were lost to long term follow-up due to two coil failures and one ossicular abnormality preventing proper device placement. No significant differences between preoperative (AC = 59 dB, BC = 55 dB) and postoperative (AC = 61 dB, BC = 54 dB) unaided pure tone averages were noted (p < 0.05). Pure tone average implant aided thresholds (41 dB) were equivalent to that of walk-in-aided (37 dB) condition with no significant difference (p < 0.05) between patients’ walk-in-aided individual frequency thresholds and implant-aided thresholds. Word recognition scores and hearing in noise scores were similar between the walk-in-aided and for the implant-aided condition. Patient benefit scales will be presented at all end points. Conclusions Results of the Otologics MET Fully Implantable Hearing Device Phase II trial provide evidence that this fully implantable device is a viable alternative to currently available hearing aids in patients with sensorineural hearing loss.

scholarly journals Effect of sinusoidally amplitude modulated broadband noise stimuli on stream segregation in individuals with sensorineural hearing loss

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jawahar Antony P ◽  
Animesh Barman
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Amplitude Modulation ◽  
Modulation Frequency ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Broadband Noise ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Stream Segregation ◽  
Temporal Cues

Background and Aim: Auditory stream segre­gation is a phenomenon that splits sounds into different streams. The temporal cues that contri­bute for stream segregation have been previ­ously studied in normal hearing people. In peo­ple with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), the cues for temporal envelope coding is not usually affected, while the temporal fine structure cues are affected. These two temporal cues depend on the amplitude modulation frequency. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of sin­usoidal amplitude modulated (SAM) broadband noises on stream segregation in individuals with SNHL. Methods: Thirty normal hearing subjects and 30 subjects with mild to moderate bilateral SNHL participated in the study. Two experi­ments were performed; in the first experiment, the AB sequence of broadband SAM stimuli was presented, while in the second experiment, only B sequence was presented. A low (16 Hz) and a high (256 kHz) standard modulation fre­quency were used in these experiments. The subjects were asked to find the irregularities in the rhythmic sequence. Results: Both the study groups could identify the irregularities similarly in both the experi­ments. The minimum cumulative delay was sli­ghtly higher in the SNHL group. Conclusion: It is suggested that the temporal cues provided by the broadband SAM noises for low and high standard modulation frequencies were not used for stream segregation by either normal hearing subjects or those with SNHL. Keywords: Stream segregation; sinusoidal amplitude modulation; sensorineural hearing loss

scholarly journals The Vibrant Soundbridge

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-149
Author(s):  
Ashutosh G Pusalkar
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Vibrant Soundbridge ◽  
Hearing Improvement ◽  
Electronic Engineer

Abstract Till about 15 years ago, the only choice of hearing improvement for moderate sensorineural hearing loss with severe speech discrimination defect was a hearing aid. It was only after Mr. Geoff Ball, an electronic engineer who was suffering from a similar defect, started thinking of an alternative to the conventional hearing aid that the Vibrant Soundbridge came into existence, and with the passage of time the indications for the use of the same have increased.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document