4.5 Article

Speech reception by listeners with real and simulated hearing impairment: Effects of continuous and interrupted noise

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
Volume 128, Issue 1, Pages 342-359

Publisher

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.3436522

Keywords

speech intelligibility; speech recognition

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health, NIDCD [R01 DC00117]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effects of audibility and age on masking for sentences in continuous and interrupted noise were examined in listeners with real and simulated hearing loss. The absolute thresholds of each of ten listeners with sensorineural hearing loss were simulated in normal-hearing listeners through a combination of spectrally-shaped threshold noise and multi-band expansion for octave bands with center frequencies from 0.25-8 kHz. Each individual hearing loss was simulated in two groups of three normal-hearing listeners (an age-matched and a non-age-matched group). The speech-to-noise ratio (S/N) for 50%-correct identification of hearing in noise test (HINT) sentences was measured in backgrounds of continuous and temporally-modulated (10 Hz square-wave) noise at two overall levels for unprocessed speech and for speech that was amplified with the NAL-RP prescription. The S/N in both continuous and interrupted noise of the hearing-impaired listeners was relatively well-simulated in both groups of normal-hearing listeners. Thus, release from masking (the difference in S/N obtained in continuous versus interrupted noise) appears to be determined primarily by audibility. Minimal age effects were observed in this small sample. Observed values of masking release were compared to predictions derived from intelligibility curves generated using the extended speech intelligibility index (ESII) [Rhebergen (2006). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 3988-3997]. (C) 2010 Acoustical Society of America. [DOI: 10.1121/1.3436522]

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available